tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:05:22 +0000Barack ObamaHillary ClintonJohn McCainIraqGeorge BushWashington PostDick CheneyJohn EdwardsAfghanistanGeorge W. BushDemocratsIranIsraelJoe BidenRepublicansSarah PalinAl GoreDavid PatersonEliot SpitzerPakistanRonald ReaganAlberto GonzalesE.J. DionneNancy PelosiTimothy GeithnerRuss FeingoldDonald RumsfeldJames WebbJoe LiebermanJohn KerryMario CuomoNewt GingrichRichard NixonSheldon SilverArlen SpecterBarbara SlavinBill RichardsonBob HigginsCIACharles SchumerChris DoddEvan BayhFDRFrank RichGeorge PatakiHoward DeanIndiaIran-Contra John EdwardsLiz KruegerMaryscott O'ConnorNew York TimesPBSVietnamhealthcareAIGAlbanyAssociated PressBill ClintonCollin PowellDennis KucinichFISAJared BernsteinKaiser PermanenteKarl RoveKeith EllisonMahmoud AhmadinejadMartin Luther KingMike BloombergMike HuckabeeMitch McConnellMuslimsMy Left WingNew YorkNew York Times. Bill ClintonPalestiniansPaul WellstoneRepublican PartyRobert BorkRudy GuilianiRush LimbaughTed KennedyThe Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005Thom HartmannTim JohnsonWall StreetWalter Reed Army Medical Centercongressimpeachmentpredatory conservatismtortureABC NewsAbraham LincolnAdam SmithAl QuaedaAlaskaAvigdor LiebermanBenjamin NetenyahuBerrett-KohlerBill KavanaghBobby JindalIntrepid Liberal JournalA forum for civil debate that promotes progressive alternatives to current challenges and a firm voice for the Patriotic Left.<p></p>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)Blogger400125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-3724625891872500047Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:39:00 +00002012-10-22T18:43:52.445-04:00Romney's Dangerous Ship of Fools<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">One criteria undecided voters must consider in this presidential election are the people who will influence policy direction in either a second term for Obama or during a Romney presidency. Ultimately, we are not just electing an individual but an administration. Assessing the likely character of an administration is especially vital when determining which candidate would be the best commander and chief. <br /><br />I suspect that even after tomorrow night’s foreign policy debate, since Romney is the challenger, his behind the scenes advisors are largely unknown to undecided voters. Perhaps undecided voters (yes they do exist!) have not given this a moment’s thought. <br /><br />Hence, when discussing the presidential election with any un-decided voters who are your friends, colleagues or relatives, you may want to inform them of a few pertinent items.&nbsp; <br /><br />Mitt Romney’s <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/10/mitt-romney-announces-foreign-policy-and-national-security-advisory-team" target="_blank">campaign website</a> identifies twenty-four individuals as “Special Advisers” that he announced on October 6, 2011.&nbsp; There are also additional individuals not referenced on his campaign website. Reviewing the credentials and track records of these individuals whether acknowledged publicly as advisers or not is instructive. As the July 12, 2012, edition of <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/12/the_romney_cheney_doctrine" target="_blank"><i>Foreign Policy</i></a> magazine reported,<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">“Out of Romney's 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it's likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity -- a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous.”</blockquote>In September, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/whos-advising-mitt-romney-on-foreign-policy/" target="_blank">ABC News</a> reported that eight of Romney’s advisers participated in the Project For A New American Century co-founded by William Kristol in 1997. Some of you may recall this group was hoping for a “Pearl Harbor” in order to flex American muscle in the Persian Gulf and Iraq. This group of neocons exploited 9/11 to justify invading and occupying Iraq, costing America blood and treasure as well as jeopardizing our geopolitical position. <br /><br />It is disquieting to contemplate any of these people enjoying access, influence and power in a Romney administration just as America is regaining its footing in the world. I’ve summarized six of them below:<br /><br /><u><b>Elliot Abrams</b></u><br /><br />Not referenced on Romney’s campaign website but <a href="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/09/who_will_get_top_jobs_in_a_romney_administration" target="_blank">rumored </a>to be an adviser in a Romney administration. In August, Abrams wrote an article for the <i><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/time-authorize-use-force-against-iran_650284.html" target="_blank">Weekly Standard</a> </i>advocating that congress authorize the use of force against Iran. <br /><br />Abrams was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_Abrams" target="_blank">convicted i</a>n 1991 for two misdemeanor counts for withholding information from congress during the Iran-Contra affair while serving in the Reagan administration and later pardoned by President George Herbert Walker Bush.<br /><br />Abrams served in George W. Bush’s administration as a Special Assistant and senior director for democracy, human rights and international operations. Of course George W. Bush's administration was infamous for serial abuses of human rights. This is a scary man who has demonstrated throughout his career that he is unfit for public service. <br /><br /><u><b>Cofer Black</b></u><br /><br />Listed on Romney’s campaign website and Romney’s chief intelligence adviser. The <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/11/meet-mitt-romney-s-trusted-envoy-to-the-dark-side-cofer-black.html" target="_blank"><i>Daily Beast</i> </a>profiled Black in its April 11, 2012 edition. While serving in the CIA he famously promised George W. Bush he would deliver Osama Bin Laden’s head on a pike. Bin Laden of course was not eliminated until President Obama’s national security team made it a priority. When Black left government service in 2004 he became the Vice Chairman of the infamous security contractor, Blackwater USA and managed a subsidiary called Total Intelligence Solutions. As some of you may recall, Blackwater USA. Blackwater USA employees repeatedly undermined American diplomatic efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan with immoral and illegal conduct. Black essentially profited handsomely from blood money. <br /><br /><u><b>John Bolton</b></u><br /><br />Although not referenced in Mitt Romney’s website as an adviser, David Sanger reported in the May 12, 2012 edition of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/sunday-review/is-there-a-romney-doctrine.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank"><i>New York Times</i> </a>that, <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">”But what has struck both his advisers and outside Republicans is that in his effort to secure the nomination, Mr. Romney’s public comments have usually rejected mainstream Republican orthodoxy. They sound more like the talking points of the neoconservatives — the “Bolton faction,” as insiders call the group led by John Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations. In a stormy tenure in the Bush administration, Mr. Bolton was often arguing that international institutions, the United Nations included, should be routed around because they so often frustrate American interests.”</blockquote>As with most neocons, Bolton is not inclined to favor the sort of coalition building that Obama has skillfully utilized during his presidency. Bolton was too controversial to be approved by the Senate and President George W. Bush utilized a recess appointment to put make this reckless buffoon America’s UN Ambassador. <br /><br /><u><b>Robert Kagan</b></u><br /><br />Listed on Romney’s campaign website. Although Kagan <a href="http://www.blogger.com/(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan" target="_blank">rejects</a> the neoconservative label, he was a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century with William Kristol. Put simply, you are who you associate yourself with, and Kagan’s friends are reckless and crazy war mongers.&nbsp; <br /><br /><u><b>Daniel Senor</b></u><br /><br />Listed on Romney’s campaign website, Senor was America’s former spokesman in Iraq and regarded in numerous accounts as a close adviser. In August, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/politics/senor-draws-attention-as-romney-adviser.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank"><i>New York Times</i></a> reported that,<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">“In Mr. Senor, Mr. Romney turned to an advocate of neoconservative thinking that has sought to push presidents to the right for years on Middle East policy. (His sister, Wendy Senor Singer, runs the Jerusalem office of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential lobbying organization.)”</blockquote>In other words, Senor has been another advocate for the sort of reckless foreign policy and philosophy that isolated America diplomatically and undermined our national security. <br /><br /><u><b>Jim Talent</b></u><br /><br />Listed on Romney’s campaign website and a former senator from Missouri. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Talent#cite_note-MO-SOS-Ballot-2006-31" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a> reports that,<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">“Although Talent was not in Congress at the time of the 2002 vote authorizing the war in Iraq, he stated in October 2006 that he would have voted for the war knowing that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Talent did not support a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq until American troops are able to train up an Iraqi army capable of maintaining security within the country.<br /><br />Talent has written that defense spending should remain at an elevated level, even after all American forces are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan.”</blockquote><a href="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/09/who_will_get_top_jobs_in_a_romney_administration" target="_blank"><i>Foreign Policy </i></a>magazine reports that Talent is rumored to be a Romney’s choice as Secretary of Defense. <br /><br />Simply put, with a Romney administration, America is more likely to engage in another conflict in the Middle East with increased defense spending when our resources have already been overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, our allies in Europe are in economic disarray and what will replace the old order in the Arab world is still evolving. Now is not the time to elect an untested leader who appears to be malleable to appeasing the extremist foreign policy views within the Republican Party.<br /><br />So tell any friend, relatives or colleagues who are undecided to please use their heads this November. Our blood and treasure depend on it. </div><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2012/10/romneys-dangerous-ship-of-fools.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-2283366012934879998Sat, 20 Oct 2012 17:18:00 +00002012-10-20T13:18:32.715-04:00Barack ObamaGeneration XMedicareMitt RomneyPaul RyanSocial SecurityThe Stakes For Generation X<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">On October 17th, Martin Longman, the talented proprietor of the excellent community blog, <i>Booman Tribune</i> had a post entitled <a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/10/17/203517/58" target="_blank">“Romney the Destabilizer”</a>. His post referenced recent reports that Romney was encouraging CEO’s to scare their employees into voting for him. Longman was particularly focused on how the post-New Deal consensus between employers and workers that helped nurture the middle class had broken down and the danger Romney represented to our civil society. I posted the following comment in response to Longman’s fine piece:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>“Liberalism at its most effective is the indispensable alternative to revolution and reaction. At its worst liberalism is a temporary place holder to extremism like the Provisional Government after the fall of the Czar in 1917 before Communism's ascendancy or the Weimar Republic in Germany when it preceded National Socialism.<br /><br />What's scary about our country in this moment in time is that Obama whether he wins or loses may be the last finger in the dike before the tsunami that comes next.<br /><br />What makes Obama's position even more fragile is that his political survival required he be co-opted by some of the same institutional forces that has disintegrated the consensus you described above. When that consensus was stronger such compromises could be more easily finessed as Clinton demonstrated. But not anymore. The stability we were taught in Social Studies class way back when is long gone and Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again.<br /><br />Obama is a good man and I hope he wins but through no fault of his own, win or lose his ability to stem the tide is fragile. Romney of course would unleash a tsunami immediately. Alas, that is America's choice in 2012.”</i></blockquote>I have second guessed my response in recent days and believe the trajectory of this election as well as our country’s future is not merely a choice between Romney’s tsunami or Obama’s fragile hold on America’s equilibrium. Win or lose, America’s future is in the hands of my age group, Generation-X which at its best is represented by Barack Obama and worst by Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan. <br /><br />Generation X is unique because our collective memory includes the experience of our parents and grandparents when a strong middle class existed and the gap between rich and poor was not as grotesque as it is today. We came of age following a post-80s hangover and early ‘90s recession, rode the dot.com boom until 2000 but also reaped the whirlwind of union busting, tax policy favoring the hyper-wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street. <br /><br />In today’s politics we’re largely ignored even with a Generation X president and vice presidential candidate. Much of the focus is instead on preserving Social Security and Medicare for folks over fifty-five or lamenting the bleak future of today’s Millennials. <br /><br />I do not overlook the importance of preserving a safety-net for seniors or establishing upward mobility for our young people. Indeed a whole lot of our seniors served in World War Two, Korea and Vietnam while our twenty-somethings risked their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of my peers are stretching their diminished resources to raise children of their own as well as take care of their parents and grandparents. We all want upward mobility and security for our young people and folks who have worked hard their whole lives. <br /><br />Nonetheless it irks me whenever I hear Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan utter assurances that people over fifty-five “have nothing to worry about” with respect to Social Security or Medicare. I’ve managed to more or less be steadily employed since 1991 and paid FICA taxes into the system the whole time. Conceivably, if I’m healthy and remain employed, I can contribute another twenty plus years of FICA taxes into the system.<br />Should that not count for something? Or is my generation chopped liver? <br /><br />It also irks me when hard working people in my generation with kids to support and aging parents to take care have their jobs callously tossed aside, outsourced, lose their pensions or are forced to live in trailer parks due to plutocrats like Romney and shenanigans on Wall Street. They exploited their influence to enrich themselves at the expense of our fiscal solvency, gorged themselves while claiming to worship at the holy temple of job creators and proceeded to undermine the livelihoods of millions of wage earners. They do this even while wrapping themselves in the false piety of morality and patriotism. <br /><br />America has an abundance of wealth that was misappropriated. And the agents of these thieves, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to “reduce the size of government” for the same reason thieves want less cops on the beat: so their friends can commit even more crimes. <br /><br />A civil society cannot be maintained with that trajectory. The end result ultimately means more gated communities and police intimidation to preserve the wealth stolen by the top from what used to be this country’s middle class as well as the poor. That is the trajectory we are on and it’s the very young and senior citizens who will be the most vulnerable if civil society breaks down. <br /><br />Demographically, seniors are more inexplicably inclined to vote for Romney and Ryan. Young people while they favor Obama obviously will not turn out with the same enthusiasm as 2008. Much of the get out the vote efforts in this campaign’s final days are understandably focused on undecided women voters. Yet I suspect get out the vote efforts with those Generation X voters inclined to support Democrats that is really the X-factor for both the presidency and down ticket races.<br /><br />Win or lose in 2012, it will also be Generation X that determines our destiny. If Obama wins he and the Democrats will need to be empowered and supported by Generation X to restore the balance between capital owners and wage earners and not give in to Tea Party crazies or greed mongers. Otherwise even with a second term President Obama will be little more than a fragile finger in the dike against Generation X plutocrats like Paul Ryan. <br /><br />And if Obama loses, Generation X will have to stand up for itself and demand not to be trodden on behalf of ourselves and generations to come.&nbsp; Young people are still finding their way in this world and our parents and grand parents have done all they can. <br /><br />It’s up to us. </div><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-stakes-for-generation-x.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1847332932733506625Sat, 13 Oct 2012 17:54:00 +00002012-10-13T14:53:38.434-04:00My Fellow Americans Do You Really Want To Find Out?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">I have not blogged regularly in a long time. Demanding day job, personal obligations, fed up with politics and blogging burnout compelled me to put my activism aside. Life is busy and something had to give.<br /><br />But I remain a believer in pursuing a more just economic and social compact. So even in my stupor I’ve phone banked recently and donated some of my salary to President Obama and candidates I truly believe in such as Massachusetts senate candidate Elizabeth Warren and incumbent Ohio senator Sherrod Brown. I do not earn much or have a lot of time but we all have to do what we can. <br /><br />I am frustrated with the Democratic Party and President Obama but the other side is an atrocity machine. Seven years ago an old college friend who had fallen on hard times took to the Internet to expose truths about corporate malfeasance inspired me to start blogging. She is known in the blogosphere as <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/user/breakingranks" target="_blank">Breaking Ranks</a> and her recent postings on <i>Daily Kos</i> have inspired me again. Even before Americans witnessed Mitt Romney’s lyingthon in the first presidential debate she skillfully <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/23/1135609/-Lies-Damned-Lies-and-Political-Math-for-the-Million" target="_blank">posted a meme</a> about the foolhardiness of electing a lying CEO to be America’s commander and chief.<br /><br />With respect to the presidency it comes down to the following:<br /><br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Either Mitt Romney truly believes Social Security belongs in the hands of an unregulated Wall Street that created a global economic catastrophe or he does not have the stones to stand up to a crazy Republican Party that does. Do you really want to find out? </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Either Mitt Romney truly believes Medicare should be replaced with a voucher system or he does not have the stones to stand up to a crazy Republican Party that does. Do you really want to find out? </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Either Mitt Romney truly believes our foreign policy should return to the blustering and blundering that occurred when neocons ruled the day in George W. Bush’s administration or he does not have the stones to stand up to a crazy Republican Party that does. Do you really want to find out? </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Either Mitt Romney truly believes 21st century equity capital robber barons like himself who profit off the misery of others when jobs are outsourced deserve even more tax breaks at the expense of the middle-class, working poor and impoverished or he does not have the stones to stand up to a crazy Republican Party that does. Do you really want to find out? </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Either Mitt Romney truly disavows the healthcare reform he passed while governor of Massachusetts and served as the template for Obama Care or he does not have the stones to stand up to a crazy Republican Party that does. Do you really want to find out? </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Either Mitt Romney truly believes that economic polices that have lowered unemployment and resulted in more Americans contributing payroll taxes to reduce our deficit <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/federal-deficit-dips-207-billion-in-2012-but-still-tops-1-trillion-for-fourth-straight-year/2012/10/12/540860aa-14a0-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html" target="_blank">$207 billion</a> in 2012 should be reversed or he does not have the stones to stand up to a crazy Republican Party that does. Do you really want to find out? </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Either Mitt Romney truly believes there should be more justices on the Supreme Court such as Antonio Scalia who believe it’s a “no brainer” to deny women the right to choose and also believes that corporations are entitled to more free speech then people or he does not have the stones to a crazy Republican Party that does. Do you really want to find out? </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Either Mitt Romney truly believes global warming is a hoax or he does not have the stones to stand up to a crazy Republican Party that does. Do you really want to find out? </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Either Mitt Romney truly believes oil companies such as Exxon and Mobil need to benefit from more corporate welfare at the expense of the middle class, working poor and impoverished or he does not have the stones to stand up to a crazy Republican Party that does. Do you really want to find out? </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Either Mitt Romney truly believes there should be no separation between church and state or he does not have the stones to stand up to a crazy Republican Party that does. Do you really want to find out?</li></ul>That’s it in a nutshell. I’m sure many of you reading this can come up with a far better list than what I posted above. <br /><br />With respect to down ticket races I would remind my fellow citizens that Republicans deliberately executed a strategy to slow the economic recovery in order to blame President Obama and the Democrats while simultaneously challenging his patriotism. Hence voting for the Republican Party is tantamount to rewarding bad behavior. <br /><br />These are not people who can be trusted with power as they have repeatedly demonstrated. You saw that during the Bush years. And only last year they held America’s fiscal solvency and credit worthiness hostage to their Ayn Rand cult fetish. Do you really want to find out what they would do with a rubber stamp named Mitt Romney?<br /><br />Obama and the Democrats have certainly not batted a 1.000. I have my own disagreements with the administration and Democratic Party on both domestic and foreign policy. I’m sure many of you have as well. But as Joe Biden put it in the recent Vice Presidential debate, “folks trust your instincts.”<br /><br />Under President Obama, Osama Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. My fellow Americans I do not want to find out who will be dead or alive if we turn the White House keys over to Mitt Romney. I hope you don’t either. </div><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2012/10/my-fellow-americans-do-you-really-want.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1316989546447788526Tue, 08 Mar 2011 02:45:00 +00002011-03-07T21:46:05.429-05:00Suite101.comSuite101.com<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">I've decided that for at least the time being I will do freelance writing over at <a href="http://suite101.com/">suite101.com</a>. My first article entitled, I<i>deologically Conservative, Operationally Liberal &amp; In Distress</i> was <a href="http://www.suite101.com/content/ideologically-conservative-operationally-liberal--in-distress-a356693">just published</a> on their site. I'll leave the <i>Intrepid Liberal Journal</i> up where my posts since 2005 can still be read and over thirty podcasts listened to. <br /><br />At suite101.com I'll primarily write about politics and current affairs. However, I'll also venture into other topics of interest to me such as information science. Whenever a new article is posted I'll provide a link for it here at my old blogspot home. My thanks all those who followed me here at Intrepid Liberal Journal and I hope you'll continue to read me at <i>suite101.com.</i> </div><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2011/03/suite101com.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-3601062074737417414Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:28:00 +00002010-12-05T23:28:59.053-05:00Bernie SandersBernie Sanders Gets It & Says It&nbsp;Alas, Sanders is only one of the remaining few willing and able to fight the good fight. <br /><br /><object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5OtB298fHY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5OtB298fHY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2010/12/bernie-sanders-gets-it-says-it.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-611198524388520319Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:02:00 +00002010-07-11T17:02:46.276-04:00DemocratsliberalismRepublicansArc of IdentityI’ve been a loyal Democrat and devoted liberal my entire life. Even as a teenager when Reagan was popular with my generation, intuitively I knew his vision was wrong. So I worked my butt off for the party and registered voters. I did this on faith that the Democratic Party would be a vehicle for economic and social justice.<br /><br />Yet a lingering disenchantment with the party always lurked like a nagging conscious and whispered doubts in my ear. Personal friends from my youth may recall how I often quipped that Republicans were the party of evil and Democrats the party of gutlessness. Alas, our winner take all system reinforces the two party duopoly, so I saw no viable alternative. And perhaps there never will be.<br /><br />The good thing about the gutless party is that at least it wasn’t out to get me. Whereas those nasty Republicans seemed to suggest that if I as a secular Jew didn’t accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior, support school prayer and engaged in casual sex, I was condemned to eternal damnation. Furthermore, if I didn’t fully embrace the principles of predatory capitalism and aggressive military nationalism, I was not a loyal American in their eyes. The Republican Party’s racist “southern strategy,” gutter tactics and homophobia, also repulsed me.<br /><br />So I rationalized supporting Democrats against what I deemed the party of evil. If we didn’t stand up for Bill Clinton then Newt Gingrich and his apostles of hate and greed would run amok. With respect to policy the Clinton administration made all sorts of compromises I didn’t agree with such as welfare reform. But his heart seemed in the right place and the technology bubble provided an illusion of prosperity and hope for wage earners across the board. Meanwhile, the Republicans had the temerity to impeach our duly elected president for getting a blowjob. I didn’t approve of Clinton’s personal conduct but abusing our Constitution over it bothered me more.<br /><br />Through the year 2000, I remained a staunch liberal both ideologically and temperamentally. By temperament I mean I was willing to debate and listen to ideas from conservative acquaintances and relatives, even as I contradictorily regarded the GOP itself as an evil institution of hate mongering greed. I’ve never believed that I had a monopoly on wisdom and perhaps through the power of reason and a good faith give and take, we could find “common ground” for the greater good. Yeah, once upon a time I really did believe that.<br /><br />After all, most of the conservatives I knew were decent people and didn’t perceive themselves, as enablers of hate mongering greed. I didn’t equate them with Republican politicians. So ideologically, I remained a traditional New Deal sort of liberal but in personal disposition I also believed it was important to remain intellectually flexible and receptive to changing realities. I still believe in that personally but in this country it doesn’t seem to work politically.<br /><br />Then George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election. No need to rehash the tale we all know so well. Suffice to say that I was PISSED! Pissed at how an American electorate could make an election close enough so Bush could steal it because they preferred him as someone they could have a beer with. Pissed that Ralph Nader and his supporters actually claimed there was no difference between Bush and Al Gore.<br /><br />Pissed at a Democratic Party that crawled into a fetal position after Bush’s ascendancy and 9/11. Pissed at the reign of indecency under a Christian-fascist regime guided by neocons, immoral nationalists, predatory crony capitalists and religious zealots. A century from now, if the human race is still here, historians may well trace America’s decline to that 2000 election when predatory capitalism’s crusade that was launched by Reagan achieved its nirvana of destruction under Bush, Cheney and their merry band of “End Times” misogynists, corporatists, Ayn Rand fetishists and delusional believers of American exceptionalism.<br /><br />During the 2002 midterm elections I looked upon my party of gutlessness in a new light. While Democrats would not overtly do me any harm they also wouldn’t stand up for me when Republicans pursued irrational wars or allowed predatory crony capitalism to destroy the American dream. It seemed the entire party was a self-gelding machine of ineptitude suffering from battered wife syndrome.<br /><br />Then along came Howard Dean, a centrist governor from Vermont, who nonetheless was one of the few Democrats bold enough to fight the madness with his famous “What I want to know” March 15, 2003 <a href="http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Transcript_of_Dean_Sacramento_Speech_15March2003.htm">speech in Sacramento</a>. Inspired by Dean, a “netroots” movement took off to emancipate the Democratic Party from elite consultants and lobbyists to represent regular folks. Or so we believed.<br /><br />For liberals like myself it was cathartic to encounter others who realized America was on a collision course with calamity and hungered for a Democratic Party with the spine to stand up and fight. In that despair and anger we felt under Bush and a corporatist media that failed to challenge the Bush administration’s distortion of reality emerged an exhilaration that we regular people would “force the spring” with a counter narrative of “truth.”<br /><br />To my disgust Bush stole another election in 2004 and portrayed John Kerry, a man with four purple hearts, as soft. In opposition, both to the Republicans and status quo insider Democrats, many of us dug in our heels to save the party and the country. In February 2006, I posted an essay I was quite proud of entitled <a href="http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2006/02/pro-business-liberalism.html">“Pro-Business Liberalism.”</a> It was the first post I did that achieved any sort of notice and within the opening paragraph I identified a flaw that remains pervasive in the Democratic Party today:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“Meanwhile, the Democrats are enduring the worst perceptions among voters from both wings of their party: liberals reluctance to identify with pro-business policies makes the party appear in favor of handouts while the DLC reinforces the suspicion among voters that the Democrats are just as corporatist as the Republicans. It’s an odd contradiction and a rare feat of political ineptitude: the two wings of the party have managed to make Democrats appear socialist and corporatist at the same time.”<br /></blockquote>Over four years later and little has changed! President Barack Obama this past week was compelled to defend his administration for not being anti-business even as millions of Americans perceive it as beholden to predatory capitalists on Wall Street. The duality is undermining Obama’s administration and the Democratic Party’s effectiveness.Sadly, what the Democratic Party offers is predatory capitalism lite and nationalism with a veneer of multinational diplomacy.<br /><br />And that leaves liberals like myself feeling adrift. My ideal of liberalism is to provide an indispensable alternative to revolution and reaction. I always envisioned liberalism as facilitating tangible positive change and reform at a pace that can be absorbed by society as a whole. I’m not a revolutionary. Revolutions are bloody. Reaction is also bloody. Hence, liberalism to me represented a means of how society could evolve and adapt to changing realities without bloodshed or overly harsh policies that hurt the most vulnerable among us. And hopefully empower and lift up those left behind in the free market’s rough and tumble.<br /><br />In 2010 however, liberalism as defined by Democrats under Barack Obama is pursuit of that holy-grail independent voter who stands on the political fifty-yard line. The end result is the center of political gravity being pulled further to the radical right as liberalism continues to lose ground. And the body politic as a result can’t even do something modest like extend unemployment benefits as plutocratic millionaire corporatists complain about the deficit they largely created during the Bush years.<br /><br />So as I reflect upon my political identity today it can be defined as weary of slogans, promises and personalities. I don’t believe in political parties or their platforms. I don’t believe in the dogma of ideology, be it left, right or middle. I don’t believe in silver tongued icons. I don’t believe in special interests, net roots movements, so called grass roots movements, moralizing politicians with nice haircuts, blow dried talking heads or careerist pundits with stock dividends in the system. I don’t believe in big government or the free market. I never believed organized religion could save anyone.<br /><br />I do believe most people are decent, reasonable and competent. Our salvation, if it is to ever come, will happen on the community level when people pool their collective resources against predatory capitalists and their enablers in power with their own businesses, local financial credit lending institutions and reduce our own carbon footprints. Otherwise, in my lifetime, a bloody revolution, reaction or even a xenophobic civil war is inevitable.<br /><br />Alas, liberalism never seemed so far away.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2010/07/arc-of-identity.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-2100754415383108290Mon, 05 Jul 2010 01:48:00 +00002010-07-04T21:57:34.081-04:00George CarlinIndependence Day & George CarlinIs there any country on this Earth more contradictory than mine? The late comedian George Carlin once observed in a classic rant that, “this country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free.” Indeed, in that little rant, Carlin defined America’s contradictory soul: freedom and oppression.<br /><br />I am proud of a country that allowed someone like Carlin to freely express himself and did not incarcerate him for his views. The man never spent any time in a gulag for telling it like it is and I love my country for that. And yet how sad that in two centuries plus our society has not evolved beyond a violent and greed based culture that wages war under the guise of freedom for the benefit of sociopathic multinational corporations.<br /><br />So, on this Independence Day, our 234th birthday, I’m thinking about soldiers, fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing civilians, in the name of freedom as politically connected contractors benefit and cities such as Detroit disintegrate. I'm thinking about the millions of citizens who did nothing wrong and are unemployed thanks to Wall Street permissiveness. Those marvelous thieves who we bailed out and will continue to steal under the protective legal cover of financial reform. I'm thinking about a country founded by rationale secular men who believed freedom of religion also meant freedom from religion yet struggles to teach the theory of evolution in its classrooms. And I’m thinking about George Carlin and wondering what he say about it.<br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Rlqjxst6xU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Rlqjxst6xU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2010/07/independence-day-george-carlin.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1501877115254817305Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:16:00 +00002010-06-16T21:24:48.419-04:00Barack Obamapredatory conservatismvenereal diseasePredatory Conservatism Is Like A Venereal DiseaseA short post this evening. After President Obama’s speech last night I pondered how the hell we got here. I’m not simply referring to the oil spill but America’s and the world’s rapidly decaying condition.<br /><br />Under George W. Bush liberals warned that America was on a collision course with calamity. I suppose one could describe the Bush regime as the culmination of forty years of predatory conservatism that favored wealth over work and corporate power over community interests. Sadly, Americans were seduced by predatory conservatism’s false promises of freedom, wealth and benevolent nationalism as our center of political gravity lurched to the radical right. As of 2010, America’s predatory conservative movement boasts a legacy of economic calamity, two failed military occupations, a crumbling infrastructure and an epic environmental catastrophe as the world spirals towards global warming at breakneck speed. <br /><br />It’s almost as if predatory conservatism as personified under its prodigal son, George W. Bush, unleashed a metastasizing venereal disease upon our institutions, culture, fiscal solvency and sense of social responsibility. The disease requires bold aggressive treatment. Instead, under President Obama, conservatism’s venereal disease is being treated with mild ointment.<br /><br />At best Obama’s ointment can reduce the sting somewhat. But it’s not reversing the disease, which continues to metastasize. Even worse, America’s body politic is recoiling from the mild ointment as if it’s worse than the disease itself that enabled Wall Street permissiveness and the British Petroleum oil spill.<br /><br />I retain my personal admiration in President Obama. But that’s where we are today.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2010/06/predatory-conservatism-is-like-venereal.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-6962495406741247521Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:02:00 +00002010-06-13T20:03:57.665-04:00BrooklynBrooklyn's 52nd Assembly DistrictChris OwensSupport Chris Owens For State Committee<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WL5MamKMrxQ/R77kZaAu8TI/AAAAAAAAAFM/L7bvF_NjVuQ/s400/Chris+Owens.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 259px; height: 316px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WL5MamKMrxQ/R77kZaAu8TI/AAAAAAAAAFM/L7bvF_NjVuQ/s400/Chris+Owens.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>It seems that entropy has been unleashed upon our lives. Hyper-sized banks, corrupt institutions, out of control developers and a political culture that wages class warfare against regular folks has taken a wrecking ball to the American dream. Here in Brooklyn, it seems that corporatist wrecking ball is on steroids. The best antidote is to support the best and the brightest of authentic progressive reformers locally.<br /><br />I was reminded of that recently when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Owens_%28politician%29">Chris Owens </a>shook hands at my Bergen Street subway station in Brooklyn last week. As readers of this blog may recall, Chris was my first podcast interview in 2006. He’s a true progressive who champions wage earners and community over the interests of developers. Chris is just the sort of person we need to represent core progressive values of decency and fairness with the Democratic State Committee for Brooklyn’s 52nd Assembly District. He's an independent voice and not part of the machine.<br /><br />His<a href="http://www.owensforchange.com/"> campaign slogan </a>says it best,<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“Stop the corruption! End the dysfunction!”<br /></blockquote>As with any campaign, true progressive reformers such as Chris Owens are going up against well financed Goliaths who want no part of his people first agenda. Hence, support from the grass roots is critical.<br /><br />I realize we’re all burned out and jaded on politics these days. That’s especially true with the horrific corruption and insipid governing happening in both Washington and Albany today. Action is empowering however and supporting Chris Owens to represent Brooklyn’s 52nd Assembly District in the State Committee is a means of thinking globally by acting locally.<br /><br />That’s why I’m supporting his campaign and I hope you will too. Please <a href="http://www.owensforchange.com/">click here</a> to either join Chris Owens campaign as a volunteer or make a donation.<br /><br />We need him.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2010/06/support-chris-owens-for-state-committee.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1753933356324305685Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:51:00 +00002010-06-14T22:39:21.906-04:00Barack ObamaBill ClintonBlanche LincolnlaborTea PartyIf Only I Could Laugh<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/laughing_clown_face-1.png"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 338px; height: 278px;" src="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/laughing_clown_face-1.png" alt="" border="0" /></a>If I didn’t care so much, if the stakes for civilization were not so high, if the fate of our ecosystem didn’t hang precariously in the balance and our blood and treasure were not so casually tossed aside on behalf of a crumbling empire, I could laugh. A hearty-belly laugh at the absurdity of current events, our mediocre at best leadership, the irredeemable whores of big industry, and the mindless corporate mouthpieces with expensive haircuts masquerading as journalists. Yes, I could laugh at the whole damn mess.<br /><br />I could laugh at America’s bizarre political math that says unless sixty votes can be cobbled in the Senate we can’t do a damn thing without achieving some faux centrist nirvana at the expense of meaningful financial reform, overhauling immigration, a cleaner environment and energy independence. I could laugh at the even more bizarre math that says stimulus spending to create jobs is bad while spending trillions in Afghanistan and Iraq is good.<br /><br />I could laugh at a political culture that simultaneously portrays President Obama as a radical Black Muslim Bolshevik and Wall Street corporatist hoping to score Goldman Sachs cash. I could laugh at how the Supreme Court will be even more hostile to wage earners, whistle blowers, the environment and civil liberties at the end of President Obama’s first term then it was at the beginning. I could laugh at how American tax payers may eventually bail out British Petroleum to clean up its mess in the Gulf.<br /><br />I could laugh at how my home state of New York is on the brink of fiscal insolvency as mendacious Albany politicians grease the patronage mill for contracts that fatten their wallets, borrow and spend from pension funds and cut needed services for the poor, the elderly, the young, the old and the disabled. I could laugh at my Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as his let business be business philosophy allowed mob corruption to metastasize in the <a href="http://www.newyorkinjuries.com/blog/?p=12301">New York City Buildings Department</a>, undermine the health and safety of millions of New Yorkers while his Honor retains the image of an above board technocrat. Heck of a job Mike!<br /><br />I could laugh at how America’s center of political gravity is defined by xenophobes who belong in a lunatic asylum. We have Republican candidates in 2010 that want to return to the gold standard, privatize Social Security for the benefit of Wall Street parasites, and support more off shore drilling and even repeal civil rights legislation. And America's center-left is folding like a limp noodle. How funny is that?<br /><br />I could laugh at how conservatism defines decency down. Nixon was crazier than Goldwater who today would be considered too liberal in the Republican Party. Reagan was even more of a ruthless class warrior against wage earners than Nixon and George W. Bush even more of a war monger then all of them combined. Then I could laugh at how the Tea Party makes George W. Bush and Dick Cheney almost seem like moderates. And I could laugh at how the American people might just put these people back in power in November 2010 and 2012.<br /><br />I could laugh at how a Democratic White House <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38394.html"><span><span>gloated </span></span></a>over the defeat of organized labor’s backed candidate in Arkansas Bill Halter in favor of the pro-corporatist Blanche Lincoln. I could laugh at how former President Bill Clinton who coveted organized labor’s support during his campaigns and his wife’s, demonized those who stood up for wage earners, health care and the environment.<br /><br />Then I could laugh at how Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln’s first vote after her primary victory was in favor of a resolution to take away the power of <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/06/senate-rejects-effort-to-strip-epa-of-power-to-regulate-green">regulating greenhouse emissions from the Executive Branch</a> at the behest of the energy industry and the Chamber of Commerce. Thankfully the resolution was narrowly defeated but remarkable that faux populists like Blanche Lincoln can with a straight face say their vote is not for sale. I could laugh at that too.<br /><br />If only I could laugh at it all. But none of it is damn funny.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2010/06/if-only-i-could-laugh.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-2573400343499141725Tue, 08 Jun 2010 03:06:00 +00002010-06-08T23:08:29.456-04:00Art RustHelen ThomasJr.Helen Thomas Speaks Her Mind<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/helenthomas.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 344px; height: 214px;" src="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/helenthomas.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>As a teenager between the hours of 6PM to 9PM I often listened to sports talk radio host Art Rust, Jr. on WABC. Rust was a pioneer who as a black man broke down barriers to become a prominent media personality and important influence. Rust's call in talk show went well beyond sports and focused on our society as a whole. He had an enormous influence on me.<br /><br />Rust was a courageous journalist who claimed illegal drugs were an epidemic in sports long before others in his profession did. It was also Rust who first made me aware of a subtle form of racism that existed in our culture when he observed that well spoken black athletes were typically described by white commentators as "articulate" as if we should be surprised they could speak. Rust often noted dryly that the same observation was seldom made about well spoken white athletes.<br /><br />One evening in the late 1980s, Rust's program had callers voicing opinions about comments made by Isiah Thomas of the Detroit Pistons who claimed that if Larry Bird were black he'd be regarded as just another good player in the NBA. A black caller attempted to make excuses for Isiah Thomas about how he was interviewed after the heat of battle against the Celtics in the playoffs and wasn't responsible for his words. As I remember it, Rust cut him off and said, "Caller he spoke what was on his mind."<br /><br />Helen Thomas (obviously no relation to Isiah Thomas!) <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/07/pol.helen.thomas/index.html?hpt=T2">spoke her mind last week</a> when she said Jewish people should leave "Palestine" and return to where they come from to countries such as Poland, Germany and the United States. Historically, her comments are absurd. Millions of Jews were liquidated in Poland and Germany during the Holocaust. Israel was created largely as the result of a refugee crisis created by the Holocaust from countries who didn't want to accept any more Jewish people. Among the countries that had stringent immigration laws against Jews was the United States! And the reference to Germany and Poland suggests Jews should have just remained among people who had demonstrated their homicidal hostility against them.<br /><br />Practically speaking, as I wrote in my previous post, if your position is that the Jews should simply leave Israel and give up on the Jewish state then you're not serious about a judicious peace. Israel has existed for over six decades and its not giving up its sovereignty any more than the United States is likely to give back territory it seized from Mexico in the 19th century. That is a non-starter. Yes, a symbolic admission of the Palestinians right of return and the hardships they endured from losing their homes in 1948 should be agreed too. I'm intensely critical of Israel's continuing occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza. To suggest however that the Jews should simply leave Israel and return to where they came from is blatant anti-Semitism.<br /><br />I have long admired Helen Thomas's career as a journalist. She often asked questions of Presidents that no one else dared. Her career also broke down barriers and made it possible for more women to cover the White House. A bigot is a bigot however and that is how she will be remembered. Even worse, her anti-Semitic diatribe has made it more difficult for an honest critique of Israeli policies and discussion of the disproportionate influence of the Israeli lobby. The happiest people of all right now about her comments are none other than AIPAC and Bibi Netenyahu.<br /><br />Heck of a job Ms. Thomas. And good riddance.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2010/06/helen-thomas-speaks-her-mind.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-7150976211356753306Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:20:00 +00002010-06-06T20:40:17.398-04:00Israel lobbyRuss FeingoldMemo To Senator Russ Feingold: Lead the Charge Against the Israeli LobbyAs an American Jew, I’ve received two constant messages since childhood: Israel’s existence is essential to our survival and Jewish people must remain vigilant against oppression. Hence, whenever Israel was criticized such as the war against the PLO in Lebanon war in 1982, closing ranks among Jewish people was instinctive. Indeed, closing ranks was easy regardless of differing politics on other issues. Most of us have family who died in the Holocaust prior to Israel’s existence. Anti-Semitism is real and Israel’s enemies among the Mid-East’s autocratic oppressive regimes are hardly sympathetic.<br /><br />Also, it was easy to rationalize sustaining the occupation that occurred after the Six Day War in 1967 when the Palestinians engaged in terrorism. It was easy to perceive and rationalize Israeli’s actions as defensive and certainly not oppressive.<br /><br />As a result, the voice of American Jews was AIPAC centric and monolithic. Well, the time has long past for American Jews to confront harsh truths. Until we do and are upfront about it, America’s political leadership will remain skittish and reluctant to do what’s right. And why should we fear the truth? As one of my favorite bloggers, Martin Longman of <span style="font-style: italic;">Booman Tribune</span> observed in a <a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/6/5/231019/9777">recent post</a>:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“One of the interesting things about Israel is that it is much more self-critical and contemplative than most people give it credit for. All you really have to do to prove this to yourself is to read their left-wing press. You'll quickly discover that Jews living in Israel consistently publish things in the newspaper that our mainstream media would never allow to see the light of day.”<br /></blockquote>So if the Israel press can be honest about itself why can’t we? One truth is that Jewish people today are far less oppressed than most in this cruel and barbaric world. Yes, anti-Semitism still exists both in America and abroad. For the most part however, my generation of fellow Jews have successfully assimilated in the respective cultures we live in. We’re not excluded from jobs or universities because we’re Jewish anymore. Nobody has refused to be my friend because I’m Jewish. I’m assimilated yet my identity as a Jew still remains and is not threatened.<br /><br />Yes a strong Israel deserves credit for helping Jewish people become more secure in the world. And I staunchly defend Israel’s right to exist. You may disagree with Israel’s founding in 1948 but Jewish people were in exile after the Holocaust and at the time most nations were not accepting Jewish refuges. Israel was essential and sixty two years later it’s irrational and wrong to expect the Jewish state to just disappear. That’s a non-starter and if that’s your position you expose yourself as not being interested in a just peace.<br /><br />Sadly though, we now have to confront another harsh truth. Israel’s image as a little country defying the odds in a hostile region fueled by aggressive Arab nationalism is no longer valid. Indeed, most Sunni Arab states today know Israel is here to stay and would prefer the Israel/Palestinian conflict disappear so they could focus instead on the threat posed by Iran. The Sunni-Arab states are far more concerned with Islamic fundamentalism that undermines their stability and power than Israel.<br /><br />Israel’s occupation of the West Bank coupled with its failed blockade of Gaza is playing into its enemies hands and undermines the national security interests of its greatest benefactor: the United States. Yes the peace activists from the Turkish flotilla were being provocative and Israel clumsily and amateurishly gave them the incident they wanted. War is politics by other means and Israel never misses an opportunity to inflict harm on itself.<br /><br />Admittedly, I myself have been too slow and knee jerk to defend Israeli policies even as I critiqued my own country for pursuing the folly of the “global war on terror.” Since the second Lebanon war took place in 2006 however I’ve belatedly come to the realization that Israel's political class is irredeemable and can't be trusted.<br /><br />It’s also remarkable to me that Jews who are liberal on most issues and regard most conservative positions in recent years to be irrational, take comfort in the uncritical support of insane right wing pundits such as Charles Krauthammer. This is a man who recently wrote a column alleging that environmentalists contributed to the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052702988.html">British Petroleum disaster in the Gulf</a>. I’m supposed to just accept that such a person is wise with respect to obtaining peace in the Middle East? As John Boehner might say, hell no!<br /><br />The only viable solution is a just two state solution that ensures Israeli security and autonomy for the Palestinians. Ultimately such a solution will resemble the settlement that Bill Clinton attempted to negotiate in the waning days of his administration. To get there, American Jews need to flex their political muscle in a new direction.<br /><br />It’s up to Jews the world over, especially American Jews, to empower their elected leaders to persuade Israel to turn their blockade of Gaza over to the international community. In such an arrangement, Hamas will be under the microscope like it never has been before and the Palestinian Authority that has made tremendous self-governing progress in the West Bank will be further empowered.<br /><br />One way Jewish people can influence the conversation away from the monolithic AIPAC media spin machine is to contribute to <a href="http://jstreet.org/">J-Street</a>, an organization of progressive Jews attempting to establish a counterweight to the Israeli apologist lobbying machine. American politicians will never take on this lobby unless they have cover from Jewish people willing to speak up. J-Street is rather like Israel was in its early days, an underdog up against giants.<br /><br />What would also help is some kind of gesture from an American Jewish politician sympathetic to J Street’s views but with credibility as a friend of Israel. A dramatic speech at J-Street’s offices might empower congress and the Obama administration to pursue another course.<br /><br />I nominate Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold for the job. He’s a true liberal who has never been shy about going against the grain and doing what’s right on issues such as civil liberties. Feingold’s often spoken of the enormous pride he has in his Jewish heritage – a pride that I share.<br /><br />I urge anyone reading this to either email or telephone <a href="http://feingold.senate.gov/contact.html">Senator Feingold’s office</a> and ask him to take a stand against the Israeli lobby.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2010/06/memo-to-senator-russ-feingold-lead.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-5301694221420447619Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:46:00 +00002010-06-06T13:59:09.009-04:00No More HiatusDuring my twenties a decade ago, I worked at a wholesale ophthalmic lens warehouse in Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn. It was my job to open as many accounts as I could nationwide via telemarketing as well as troubleshoot customer complaints. It was a tough way to earn a living but I gave it everything I had. Anyway, one of my favorite all time work colleagues who ran the stock lens floor had this saying:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“It’s an imperfect world and we are very much a part of this world.”<br /></blockquote>He sagely repeated this to me often as I struggled with mishaps that occurred daily and impacted my commission. All kinds of things would go wrong and it seemed I had dissatisfied customers screaming at me every hour. Lenses would be picked wrong, mishandled, or the messenger services were late with their deliveries. Our customers were mom and pop size opticians and optometrists competing with large chains such as Lens Crafters that promised instantaneous turnaround at discount prices. So whenever we screwed up (which happened frequently) I heard about it.<br /><br />Earning the trust and loyalty of these customers tested my patience and endurance. The wholesale ophthalmic lens industry is intensely competitive with respect to pricing and when shipping charges are factored there is hard bargaining over pennies. We were competing with services far more local to these customers nationwide and simultaneously vying with larger operations than ours to maintain our own client base in Brooklyn. So the customers had plenty of alternatives if they were dissatisfied with us. However, mistakes in the industry among wholesale operations such as ours was common and our competitors were hardly superior. So if a relationship with the customer could be maintained, the rough waters were easier to navigate.<br /><br />Adding to the challenge was that quality of our customer service was contingent upon the conscientiousness of people who barely earned more than minimum wage with no health benefits or seemingly any stake in the company’s growth. Meanwhile, the two owners of the company I answered to were often fighting each other and had no patience for excuses (such as their polycarbonate lenses being overpriced). I also didn’t have health benefits and there was no pension plan for any of us. One of the owners even tried to motivate me one day by saying that if I consistently hit certain sales targets he could retire. Why he thought that would inspire me I can’t say. <br /><br />And yet, the education from the experience of those years was indispensable to me and even resembled politics. I learned early on that both the customers and the lens pickers I relied upon respected sincerity and despised phoniness. Being glib, over promising, making excuses and trying to cover your butt with untruths when mistakes were made never worked.<br /><br />So I found my voice and played it straight with all the constituencies I dealt with: customers, bosses and my frustrated overworked colleagues. When we screwed up an order I acknowledged it and persuaded my bosses to make amends to the customer. If I couldn’t offer a better price on a particular product I admitted it but offered to help the customer on something else they bought frequently. With my colleagues on the lens floor and billing departments I was with them in the pits, sharing their gallows humor and owning up to my own mistakes which made it easier to get a better performance from them. They didn’t have a commission stake like I did but their work ethic was real and treating them with respect went a long way.<br /><br />My bosses were tough to handle, as they sometimes wanted me to compromise my integrity with clients or co-workers but overtime they realized it was an asset to have somebody that everyone trusted. Maintaining my credibility became integral to their bottom line.<br /><br />The experience was often humbling, as I didn’t have all the answers or solutions to every crisis of the moment that emerged. It was also a challenge because as anyone who knows me can tell you, I am hardly a social butterfly. Often I wished I could just retreat from the whole thing and bury my head in the sand. As the years went by though I had a loyal customer base. One of my customers, an optometrist from Indiana said to me one day that,<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“I appreciate how you listen to what I need more than you try to sell.”<br /></blockquote>I think about those years working in Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn as I observe today’s political discourse and reflect upon the art of political blogging. Alas, our political conversation today is more about “branding” than listening, learning or dealing with challenges truthfully. The right, left, middle and everything in between are stuck in this loop of over the top shouting and equivocation.<br /><br />Years of blogging and activism burned me out on the whole thing and retreating seemed preferable to trying to shout louder than the Tea Partiers, the Birthers or anarchists who claim there is no daylight between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And then you have those elitist institutional pundits such as David Brooks and David Broder, who believe it’s OK to split the difference on reality in the name of centrism.<br /><br />Shouting won’t get it done and neither will silence.<br /><br />So, I’m going to resume posting again from my corner of the universe when I have the time and inclination. And I like I did in Sheepshead Bay, I’ll plug away in my own way. Some will follow. Some will be persuaded. Some won’t give a damn. Some honest well minded folks will point out when I’m wrong. Others will gratuitously shout.<br /><br />We live in a very imperfect world and our country is very much apart of that world. Problems and challenges abound in all directions.<br /><br />Hopefully, overtime I’ll reach enough sane and decent people who can make a difference.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2010/06/no-more-hiatus.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-451979221593211488Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:22:00 +00002010-01-31T16:25:21.098-05:00Goodbye For NowMy apologies for going so long without a post or update of any kind. I am awed and overwhelmed by the emails asking of my whereabouts and well being. No I have not disappeared from the face of the Earth. Rather, even we bloggers are people with lives beyond the virtual world of the Internet. Personal and professional demands have simply inhibited my ability to maintain the high standards and dedication I gave to this blog from November 2005 to the first few months of 2009.<br /><br />It was always my intention to return with commentary and podcast interviews and so I never provided any sort of update. I always assumed I would get around to it. But the weeks and months passed and the personal demands on my attention have only intensified. Also, merely keeping this site fresh with shallow “micro blogging” Twitter style posts has never interested me. Plenty of that exists on the Internet with or without me.<br /><br />I dedicated nearly four years of my life to this blog and done my best to provide substantive analysis as well as present readers/listeners with compelling insights from thinkers in over thirty podcast interviews. I am proud of the body of work this site represents and will keep it up for as long as blogger allows. However, I am disabling the comments function because I am unable to monitor them consistently and at this point, most comments are attempts at Spam anyway. I still intend to resume blogging once outside concerns lessen.<br /><br />Frankly, I am burnt out and disenchanted with our political discourse. I deeply despair that America is sliding into an abyss of banality when maturity and seriousness of purpose is most required during this era of calamity. This banality is pervasive on the right, left and everything in between. Responding for example to all of President Obama’s knee jerk apologists and gratuitous critics requires more time, energy and patience than I currently possess.<br /><br />I will remain an activist on behalf of causes, issues and policies I believe in even as I take a respite from blogging. One can make a difference in this world without twittering about every thought they have. I encourage any and all to remain activists and think globally by acting locally.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2010/01/goodbye-for-now.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-4354524459195212051Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:23:00 +00002009-08-31T13:09:39.979-04:00Barack ObamaBob DoleDan QuayleOrin HatchTed KennedyWe Must Fill the Void Ourselves<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/Ted-Kennedy_1359462c.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; WIDTH: 460px; CURSOR: pointer; HEIGHT: 288px" alt="" src="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/Ted-Kennedy_1359462c.jpg" border="0" /></a>Like millions of my fellow citizens, I am reflecting after the death of Ted Kennedy. Death is an egocentric experience for the survivors. Indeed, rituals such as funerals, wakes or in the Jewish religion “sitting Shiva,” is really about nurturing the souls of those left behind. That is also true when it is a public figure or celebrity that has died. We may never have met them or knew them yet they touched us nonetheless. The Kennedy family understands this better than anyone and is well practiced in rituals that not only honor the dead but comfort the living.<br /><br />President John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were assassinated before I was born. They touched my parents, but to me they were legendary martyrs and almost mythical. In 1980 however, their very real brother delivered the first political speech that ever captured my attention at the Democratic convention. I was only a kid but inspired by Kennedy’s defiant idealism following defeat. As I grew older, I appreciated Kennedy’s quest to stand up for the voiceless as predatory conservatism systematically destroyed the hopes and dreams of society’s most vulnerable. Remarkably, Kennedy always managed to fight the good fight with a smile even as he remained true to his principles.<br /><br />Kennedy’s civility and statesmanship was rightly extolled among his colleagues as ideologically diverse as Chris Dodd and Orin Hatch. And certainly there is virtue with respect to how Kennedy never looked upon his adversaries as “enemies.” Hence, Kennedy forged a record and legacy as America’s most accomplished liberal legislator. More children have health insurance because of his legislative partnership with Orin Hatch. More Americans were empowered to vote because of his crossing party lines to collaborate with Bob Dole. In 1982, Kennedy joined forces with a young conservative Senator from Indiana named Dan Quayle so more citizens would receive job training.<br /><br />Kennedy’s generosity of spirit as so many conservative voices demonized him and his family is an inspiration we can all learn from. True Kennedy was a flawed man and his dishonorable and irresponsible conduct resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. If I were a member of her family I likely could never forgive. Yet I find it ironic how so many conservative critics who champion Christian values could find so little virtue in Kennedy’s personal quest for redemption. Kennedy was a flawed man with his heart in the right place who tried to do well. Alas, too many politicians are intolerant of the imperfections of others and pursue policies that cause more harm than good.<br /><br />Yet as members of the establishment political class honor Kennedy’s “bipartisanship” we should never forget that his political leverage stemmed from authenticity and conviction. When other Democrats preferred triangulation Kennedy unapologetically carried the liberal banner. In 2002 and 2003, while too many Democrats cowered as the Bush administration pursued a reckless war of choice with Iraq, Kennedy unequivocally and forcefully opposed it. Ultimately, Kennedy’s strength and compassion, enhanced the stature of those who entered into principled compromises with him. With all due respect to Orin Hatch, without Ted Kennedy he was just another callous conservative.<br /><br />In comparison, one’s stature simply cannot be enhanced by compromising with tools of the medical industrial complex such as senators Max Baucus and Evan Bayh. How can anyone with an ounce of common sense or deductive reasoning have any faith in any compromise forged by plastic figures like those two agents of corporatism? To be sure, many Democrats, in the House especially are unwavering in their support of the public option. Sadly though, President Obama has sent mixed signals about how staunchly he supports it and key Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee such as Max Baucus are more beholden to the insurance companies than their constituents.<br /><br />Kennedy's absence from the debate has left a void that is being filled with feckless Democrats, corporate shills and homicidal right wing ideologues. It’s an enormous void that will take many figures and years to fill. Presently, I don’t see anyone on the scene, including I regret to say, President Obama, who has the political intuition and will to fill it. Kennedy understood that politics was intensely personal. As a figure who suffered great personal loss he tapped into raw emotions on behalf of the voiceless better than any Democrat since his brother Robert Kennedy.<br /><br />Today, as I mourn Senator Kennedy, I am also thinking about my best friend from high school. My friend prefers to remain anonymous so I’ll refer to him as John Doe or JD. JD and I re-established contact after almost no communication for the preceding twenty plus years through online social networking. Isn’t it strange how life works that way? JD and I talked nearly every day for four years but after graduating we went our separate ways.<br /><br />Anyway, I learned that three years ago, JD sustained a brain injury following a car accident and is currently disabled. Previously, JD was professionally successful and thriving. He also married and has a six year old daughter. The fates were not kind to my friend and the accident has turned his life upside down. Today, JD is desperately motivated to rehabilitate, recover and resume an active life. Sadly, the medical industrial complex is an obstacle to his getting better. Here is how JD described his most recent encounters with insurance bureaucrats:<br /><blockquote style="FONT-STYLE: italic">“I should send my story to a town hall meeting to explain why health care needs to be a single payer. I went to an orthopedic for the first time today as my back is killing me. After 3 years of shots to numb the pain and non-stop pain killers I feel it is time to try and find the cause and not just numb it, which does not work.<br /></blockquote><blockquote style="FONT-STYLE: italic">I gave the orthopedist rep at the front desk my no fault information and expected stupidly that it would just go through without a problem. Of course that did not happen. She called No Fault and was told that my account was closed on 7/5/09 and that I was not entitled to any further payment for my injuries.</blockquote><blockquote style="FONT-STYLE: italic">I knew this was BS as they just agreed to pay for a different doctor last week and even if this was true you would think that would have notified me.”</blockquote>Already, JD’s experience is sadly familiar for too many citizens. Yet his frustration would only get worse:<br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic"></span><blockquote><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">“This day was the first time I was told that I was denied going to a orthopedic doctor in 2006 as I was told then I did not need it. I told the supervisor on the phone that I found this strange considering that today was the FIRST time I had even gone to an orthopedist so how could I be refused something that I have never gone to before to see if I could even get any help from them. I then said that it makes no sense because they continue to pay for my pain management doctor, which basically just gives me shots in my back and medication for pain. In other words I said to the supervisor, you will pay for me to get drugs and be numb but you won't pay to fix the problem?”</span></blockquote>JD’s experience grew even more absurd:<br /><blockquote style="FONT-STYLE: italic">“This idiot then said that if I want to challenge this ruling that I would have to send them further information proving that I have these problems in my back and neck that would warrant this care. I have gone thru that before and I could tell you stories about that. But I said, OK I could do that as I had all of that paper work in the orthopedics office now and I could fax it immediately.<br /></blockquote><blockquote style="FONT-STYLE: italic">He THEN said something beyond stupid. That because the IME was in 2006 there was a chance that the doctor would not be found to review the addendum to change his mind. Yet, the doctor that said I was fine would have to get the new information and than have to admit that he was wrong, which isn’t happening. To further piss me off, the supervisor tells me that even if I send in the information that if the doctor could not be found that even the new information would not change anything, they could not contact another doctor to review it and that their original opinion would stand. So I said to the guy, you are saying that if I show you proof that I have these problems you STILL may not pay for this? He said yes. I said that is BS. I then ranted on him how could I be denied seeing an orthopedic before I even TRIED to go to one before. The guy was an idiot so I said that I wanted to speak to HIS supervisor. The guy said that I can but he will say the same thing. I said I still want to talk to him. He took my number and said he did not know when he would get back to me.</blockquote><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic"></span><blockquote><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">I went to the doctor anyway as I was there for 2 hours, stressed out of my gord, and having the doctor submit it to No Fault, have them deny it and then go thru my medical.”</span></blockquote>I felt helpless and angry as I read this closing paragraph from my friend:<br /><blockquote style="FONT-STYLE: italic">“This is yet another stupid war I have had with these people over the last 3 years. They expect me to give up by giving me the run around and I refuse to until they give in. They push and push as most people would just give up. THIS is why we need a single payer Medicare for all so this shit won't happen. I just want to get better and these idiots are making it harder for me to do so.”<br /></blockquote>Ted Kennedy who knew tragedy and loss was on the side of people like my friend. It was often a lonely fight as he went up against the institutional strength and money of the medical industrial complex. Making the fight even harder is that too many of Kennedy’s colleagues in both parties have served as enablers of the parasitic insurance industry. Indeed, the struggle for economic and social justice must have often felt to Kennedy like he was climbing a greased hill in bare feet. Even so he continued to put every scrap of prestige and talent at his disposal in pursuit of a more prosperous and just society. The “cause” endured for him far longer than his personal ambitions. Alas, too many figures today care more about being big than doing good.<br /><br />There is no single figure anymore that possesses the combination of gravitas and will to stand up for people like my friend as Ted Kennedy did throughout his career. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to fill the void Kennedy left behind. As JD confided to me recently, until his accident he didn’t have much interest in politics. Today JD understands just how high the stakes of political discourse are. On any given day, any one of us could have their lives turned upside down just like my old friend from high school.<br /><br />Ted Kennedy, who had his life turned upside down numerous times understood that better than anyone.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-must-fill-void.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-2772242254906029662Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:29:00 +00002009-08-05T21:45:39.176-04:00Axis of EvilAxis of GreedBarack ObamaBlue Dogscap and tradehealthcareMike RossWall StreetThe Good Fight: Taking On the Axis of Greed<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/PH2009073000565.jpg">Arkansa's Blue Dog Mike Ross<img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 350px; height: 240px;" src="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/PH2009073000565.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />George W. Bush coined the phrase “Axis of Evil” during his infamous 2002 State of the Union speech in referring to Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It should be obvious to Americans by now that what really undermines our security as a people is an Axis of Greed compromised of Wall Street, fossil fuel’s Energy Industrial Complex and the Medical Industrial Complex. These are the people that confiscate assets from communities to enrich the mega rich, undermine the environment and promote wars in foreign lands for oil and make it damn hard for millions of people to get affordable healthcare for any illness more serious than a common cold.<br /><br />This Axis of Greed represents an entrenched juggernaut of corporate power and moneyed interests with tentacles inside the media as well as the corridors of power in Washington and every state capital. Electing Democrats by itself was never going to be enough as the fight over health-care reform illustrates. With Republicans out of power, money that previously went to Republicans is now funneled to c<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073004267.html">onservative Blue Dog Democrats</a>. Hence, my posts earlier this year describing Senators <a href="http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/03/evan-bayh-is-corporatist-class-warrior.html">Evan Bayh</a> and Finance Committee Chairman <a href="http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/03/max-baucus-is-corporatist-class-warrior.html">Max Baucus </a>as “Corporatist Class Warriors.”<br /><br />First, let us review the good news. Yes, believe it or not, there is good news to speak of in this righteous struggle against the Axis of Greed. What has been achieved is that the battle is finally joined after four decades of predatory conservatism. Barack Obama in ‘08 and congressional majorities in ’06 and ’08 were elected with a mandate of reform and change. Many Democrats, including the president himself were supported with small donations from regular folks. Hence, there is an actual fight taking place and liberals finally have allies in the White House and congress with teeth and progressive sensibilities.<br /><br />Predatory conservatism is discredited and despite a recent rough patch for President Obama, the Axis of Greed has been forced to negotiate on political terrain less favorable to them than ever before. Also, President Obama has proven an effective counter-puncher whenever his back is up against the wall and I suspect that lesson will be relearned by his adversaries during the congressional recess in August.<br /><br />Remember, initially opponents of the economic stimulus package defined the terms of debate but once Obama counter-punched the Economic Recovery Act Passed – albeit at far less than liberals like me had hoped. That will likely be the end results with respect to health care reform, cap and trade legislation and attempts to reform Wall Street with a consumer protection agency – Obama’s counter-punching will salvage enough political space to advance the ball even as liberals like me are disappointed.<br /><br />Unfortunately, in America, merely winning elections with large majorities is not enough when taking on the Axis of Greed and the playing field is still tilted in their favor. Enough Democrats in southern and rural districts remain obstacles to change. This poses a strategic dilemma for Democrats and liberals. Democrats need the Blue Dogs to caucus with them in order to maintain a majority.<br /><br />Yet these very same Blue Dogs are opposed to core Democratic Party values such as health-care that benefits people instead of HMOs. Indeed, the Blue Dogs are more concerned with the well being of the Medical Industrial Complex and fear that a strong public option will force insurance companies to charge more reasonable prices for medication. They feel more beholden to financial contributors at Goldman Sachs, Exxon and Aetna than the hard working farmers, wage earners and small business entrepreneurs who voted for them.<br /><br />The upshot is that for all the terrific organizing done the previous two election cycles and the incredible way the Internet has transformed campaign financing, the Axis of Greed still has the dollars and institutional strength to shift the end product of legislation in their favor. Through the power of advertising and their allies in the corporate media, the Axis of Greed can scare the public with myths and disinformation to undermine needed investments in infrastructure, education or making health-care affordable for the single Mom working three jobs. Blue Dog congressional Democrats who rely on the support of constituents earning less than $40,000 a year will not support tax increases on millionaires to help pay for health-care for everyone because they fear the Axis of Greed more than that those constituents they allegedly represent.<br /><br />So does that mean we give up and throw in the towel? Hell no! It means we have more work to do and our struggle is just beginning. In recent years we have successfully harnessed our natural constituencies in cities and minority demographics to achieve a majority. And thanks to previous Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean, the Democratic Party is a presence in states and communities it previously wasn’t.<br /><br />But there is still an organizing lag for liberals in too many rural communities. Unions are especially weak in these districts and people like Arkansas House Democrat Mike Ross for example who triumphantly boast that they “slowed down” health-care reform, need to be convinced that favoring the Axis of Greed over the people will cause him real political pain. As <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009571&amp;cycle=2010">opensecrets.org </a>reveals, two of Congressman Ross’s top five industry contributors in the 2009-2010 campaign cycle are health-care professionals and Pharmaceutical/Healthcare Products. Ross is merely one example of a stark reality: until he fears his constituents more than the Axis of Greed, nothing will ever change and not even the rhetorical gifts of President Obama will be enough.<br /><br />Meaningful change is going to take a long time. We’re only in the first inning of an extra inning game requiring resolve, endurance, patience and resilience. President Obama will sign watered down health-care legislation and call it reform this year. He will have no choice. In a few years we will hopefully be able to revisit the issue with greater political strength.<br /><br />Obama will also have no choice but to sign watered down cap and trade legislation. Given the current pace of global warming it also won’t be good enough and will have to be revisited when the political terrain is more favorable - and hopefully won't be too late too save the planet. Finally, the Wall Street economy will have some more reforms but the huge imbalances in the system will not be addressed any time soon if plutocrats such as Treasury Timothy Geithner have anything to say about it.<br /><br />This is a long, tough, righteous and worthy fight. I’m in all the way for as long as it takes. We all need to be.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/08/good-fight-taking-on-axis-of-greed.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-9160310931399834053Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:59:00 +00002009-07-19T21:41:13.359-04:00Andrea Batista SchlesingerMayor Michael BloombergThe Death of Whythe Drum Major InstituteThe Death of Why?: An Interview With Author Andrea Batista Schlesinger<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/9781576755853L.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 174px; height: 266px;" src="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/9781576755853L.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>The phrase “knowledge is power” is a cliché in our culture. Yet as often as we hear it from others or speak it ourselves, how often have we contemplated the process of acquiring knowledge? Is there a blueprint for obtaining knowledge and wisdom? Are we encouraging children to be intellectually curious or merely teaching them that every question has an instant and obvious answer? <br /><br />In her book, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Death of Why?: The Decline of Questioning</span> and the Future of Democracy (<a href="http://www.bkconnection.com/">Berrett-Kohler Publishers</a>), New York City policy expert <a href="http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/andrea.php?ID=10">Andrea Batista Schlesinger </a>writes that,<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“Why is the first question most children ask. With this question we express, to the delight and chagrin of our parents, our power.<br /><br />In my life, questions have always been power. Asking them enabled me to overcome the challenges I faced as a young woman sitting at tables where I didn’t automatically belong.”<br /></blockquote>Although only thirty-two, Schlesinger has operated in the arena of policy debates locally in New York City and nationally for over a decade. Since 2002, Schlesinger has applied her background in public policy, politics, and communications to transform the <a href="http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/">Drum Major Institute</a> (“DMI”) into a progressive policy think tank with national impact. During her tenure as Executive Director, DMI created its Marketplace of Ideas series which highlights successful progressive policies from across the country and launched two public policy blogs that reach several thousand readers a day; and embarked on a national program to nurture careers in public policy for college students from underrepresented communities.<br /><br />Recently, Schlesinger took a leave of absence from DMI to serve as a senior policy adviser to the re-election campaign of New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg – a decision that is controversial among New York City liberals like myself. Prior to joining DMI, Schlesinger directed a national Pew Charitable Trusts campaign to engage college students in discussion about the future of Social Security and served as the education adviser to Bronx borough president and mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer.<br /><br />The one life lesson Schlesinger has learned above all others in her career and promotes passionately her book is that questions equals power. It is Schlesinger’s contention that our culture promotes instant answers at the expense of inquiring.<br /><br />With <a href="http://www.bkconnection.com/ProdDetails.asp?ID=9781576755853&amp;Type=BL&amp;PCS=BKP">this book</a>, Schlesinger has four primary objectives:<br /><br />1) Convince readers of the importance of inquiry in our democracy;<br /><br />2) Illustrate how the very institutions that should be encouraging inquiry such as schools, the media, and government, the Internet are instead undermining intellectual curiosity in our society;<br /><br />3) Inspire readers with hopeful examples of people working to restore inquiry to its rightful place of importance;<br /><br />4) Convey a sense of urgency among citizens to develop effective “habits of the mind” and not be easily seduced by instant easy sound bite answers to complex challenges such as global warming.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Death of Why</span>, is a well researched and scrupulously sourced eleven chapters and 215 pages of text. Where Schlesinger’s book is especially provocative is when she takes bloggers like me to task for engaging in robotic group-think and avoiding engagement with people possessing different viewpoints.<br /><br />Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo <a href="http://www.bkconnection.com/ProdDetails.asp?ID=9781576755853&amp;d=end">said that</a>,<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">"The road to wisdom is asking 'why'? Andrea Batista Schlesinger has been asking 'why?" and supplying her own bright and thoughtful answers for long enough so that some of us suggested she write a book. It's foruntate for all of us that her answer was 'why not!'"<br /></blockquote>The publisher of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Nation</span>, Kathleen vanden Heuvel <a href="http://www.bkconnection.com/ProdDetails.asp?ID=9781576755853&amp;d=end">added that</a>,<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">"From her start in politics as a teenager Andrea Batista Schlesinger has asked the important questions. Now she asks her most important: are we teaching young people to value inquiry, and if not, what hope can we have for the future of democracy?"<br /></blockquote>Schlesinger graciously agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me this afternoon about her book. She was engaging and assertive in a conversation that was just over forty-six minutes. Among the topics discussed and debated is her contention that we’re ideologically segregated, her argument that the Internet has reinforced a destructive group think mentality in our society, her advocacy for civics education and objection to teaching “financial literacy” in public schools and we closed by discussing her decision to join Mayor Bloomberg’s re-election campaign as a senior policy adviser.<br /><br />Please refer to the flash media player below.<br /><br /><object><embed src="http://www.antemedius.com/files/flvplayer.swf" flashvars="showicons=true &amp;file=http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/071909_Interview_With_Adrea_Batista_Schlesinger.mp3&amp;image=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJeagle2.jpg&amp;logo=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJlogo.gif&amp;link=http://www.antemedius.com/users/intrepid-liberal-journal&amp;height=170&amp;width=300" width="300" height="170"></embed></object><br /><br />This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by either searching for the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-of-why-interview-with-author.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-9047842246695932083Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:57:00 +00002009-07-12T18:07:17.705-04:00ACORNCitizen WealthWade RathkeThe Ultimate Organizer: An Interview With ACORN's Founder Wade Rathke<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/9781576758625L.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 174px; height: 263px;" src="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/9781576758625L.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>It seems no matter which political party in America holds the majority, a Washington/Wall Street corporate centric axis dominates policy making. Indeed, Illinois Democratic Senator <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/dick-durbin-banks-frankly_n_193010.html">Dick Durbin </a>recently observed that banks, “Frankly Own the Place.” Among liberal-progressive activists like myself, this condition has facilitated a confrontational mindset.<br /><br />Our experience suggests that the power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few will not be voluntarily relinquished. Hence, everything from healthcare reform to bankruptcy protection for aggrieved homeowners is perceived by many of us as a high stakes pitched battle between struggling families and feculent corporate behemoths. Although activism has certainly facilitated important victories on behalf of working people, fighting for economic justice often seems analogous to climbing an endless wall.<br /><br />Veteran activist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Rathke">Wade Rathke </a>has been steadily climbing that wall on behalf of working people for forty-years. As the founder of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (“ACORN”), Rathke has a unique perspective about what community organizing strategies work best to empower working people that are struggling to save and accumulate wealth. Rathke is also an assertive advocate for welfare benefits on behalf of people out of work. He’s both won and lost more than his share of battles. Both he and ACORN have the battle scars of scrutiny liberals typically receive from standing up for America’s poor and disenfranchised.<br /><br />In <span style="font-style: italic;">Citizen Wealth: Winning the Campaign To Save Working Families</span>, (<a href="http://www.bkconnection.com/ProdDetails.asp?ID=9781576758625&amp;PG=1&amp;Type=AUTH&amp;PCS=BKP">Berrett-Koehler</a>), Rathke writes,<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“We need to create a national economic and political consensus that increasing family income, wealth and assets is not `welfare’ or an entitlement ‘give-away’ program but an investment in the public good and well-being.”<br /></blockquote>His book is an accessible thirteen chapters and 171 pages of text presenting his blueprint to organize regular folks to win economic and political power. Rathke’s book also contains revealing anecdotes about ACORN’s negotiations with corporate entities such as H&amp;R Block and their bank, HSBC, to end the predatory practice of Refund Anticipation Loans. Perhaps the most compelling topic in his book is covered in chapter nine when Rathke laments how millions of citizens eligible for Food Stamps, Medicaid and the State Children Health Insurance Program (“SCHIP”) are disenfranchised from participating in the very programs designed to help them.<br /><br />Rathke has remained involved with organizing activities after leaving ACORN in 2008. He is the founding board member of the Tides Foundation as well as the chief organizer of SEIU Local 100 in New Orleans and publisher of <a href="http://www.socialpolicy.org/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Social Policy</span> </a>magazine. He posts regularly at the <a href="http://www.waderathke.com/">Chief Organizer</a> blog.<br /><br />Rathke agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about his book and among the topics covered is the meaning of citizen wealth, why economic justice has lagged behind expanded civil liberties for minorities and women, the methodology of ACORN’s approach to fight H&amp;R Block’s predatory practices of Refund Anticipation Loans, the criticisms ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act have received about the housing crisis and his belief that worker/labor organization is imperative for all segments of society. Our conversation was twenty-eight and a half minutes.<br /><br />Please refer to the flash media player below.<br /><br /><object><embed src="http://www.antemedius.com/files/flvplayer.swf" flashvars="showicons=true &amp;file=http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/071209_Wade_Rathke_Interview.mp3&amp;image=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJeagle2.jpg&amp;logo=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJlogo.gif&amp;link=http://www.antemedius.com/users/intrepid-liberal-journal&amp;height=170&amp;width=300" width="300" height="170"></embed></object><br /><br />This interview can also be accessed at no cost the Itunes Store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/07/ultimate-organizer-interview-with.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-3321098255631856405Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:31:00 +00002009-07-05T14:42:38.659-04:00AlbanyBarack ObamaDavid PatersonIranWall StreetWorkers Family PartySunday Summer MusingsAs regular readers of this blog have noted to me via email, I have posted infrequently in recent weeks. Although I’ve conducted podcast interviews with interesting subjects and have more scheduled over the summer, personal matters have required my attention. Hence, I haven’t been able to comment on recent events. Some of you have emailed asking if I’m doing OK. Rest assured, I am fine and this has only been a temporary respite from blogging. Like many of you, I have been following current events both nationally and internationally as well as locally in my home state. A few observations and thoughts below:<br /><ul><li>Curiously, the lack of coherent conservative political opposition is undermining the progressive cause and reinforcing the Washington/Wall Street axis. President Obama and much of the Democratic Party appears content to remain risk averse, hoard political capital as “Blue Dog” Democrats such as Evan Bayh and Max Caucus continue to be whores for the private insurance industry and the moneyed interests. With the Republican Party in disarray, the Obama administration has no incentive to go beyond the political fifty-yard line and transform America from a corporate national security state to a society that facilitates broad based prosperity for real entrepreneurs and wage earners. Meanwhile, the corporate press falsely portrays the national debate as between the “liberal” Obama administration and “mainstream” critics. Sadly, and it pains me to write this, enablers of America’s modern gilded age have merely hit the “reset button” with the Obama administration. I like Al Franken and I’m happy he will finally take his rightful place as Minnesota’s junior senator. But that magical sixtieth vote will not transform the landscape all that much. As Illinois Senator Dick Durbin <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/durbin-sold-stocks-funds-_n_215822.html">candidly put it</a> earlier this year, the banks “frankly own the place.” <br /></li></ul><ul><li>In my opinion, Bernie Madoff is a scapegoat for the crimes on Wall Street. Madoff will spend the rest of his days in prison and deservedly so. I have no sympathy for him. However, the looters at Goldman Sachs, Citicorp and A.I.G. are just as guilty if not more so than Madoff. Yet they’re benefiting from billions of dollars subsidized by taxpayers as state and municipal governments barely hang on. It seems to me that Madoff as the public face of Wall Street’s crimes is enabling plutocrats in Washington and the financial services industry to avoid accountability and needed restructuring of our economy. Two decades ago, Michael Milken became the public face of Wall Street’s excess and nothing changed. If Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the administration’s senior economic advisor, Timothy Geithner have their way, the Wall Street/Washington axis will continue to conduct business as usual. Their so-called “reforms” are cosmetic only and will not facilitate the systemic change our economy so desperately needs. </li></ul><ul><li>Enablers of the Washington/Wall Street axis are the cozy relationship between “journalists” and the lobbyists of corporate America. The recent news about the Washington Post selling access to corporate lobbyists simply reinforces what the American people have sensed in their guts for a long time: the “truth” is purchased, packaged and sold. Americans across the political spectrum know this intuitively and that as much as anything explains the decline of traditional media in the Internet age. To some degree this is regrettable because nobody exposed local corruption better than those old time city newspapers with reporters mining sources among the worker bees at city hall. Also, the Internet and blogs are hardly a panacea of journalism. Regardless, the Washington/Wall Street access can only be broken from outside and that means we the people have to become our own journalists. </li></ul><ul><li>It seems that the real conflict in Iran is between their security forces and factions among the clerics. The valiant protesters are really pawns for the real power struggle-taking place. Even so, hopefully the people who bravely stood up and risked their lives represent a window into the future. Presently though, Iran appears poised to become more of a traditional military dictatorship and less of a theocracy. How events in Iran will transform the Middle East is hard to say but there does appear to be a thaw in American/Syrian relations. The State Department has hoped to exploit potential rifts between Iran and Syria for years even as the Bush administration behaved like a bull in a China shop and the fallout from Iran's presidential election has given the West at least a modest diplomatic opening. </li></ul><ul><li>I’m gratified American troops are finally withdrawing from Iraq and that Vice President Biden has advised the Iraqis we won’t be expending more blood and treasure to police sectarian violence. Sadly, those resources will likely be redeployed in the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater. Unless vigorous diplomacy with NATO powers or the upcoming summit in Russia can facilitate greater logistical support, an overextended American military is more vulnerable than ever to the burdens of empire maintenance in the name of national defense. </li></ul><ul><li>I can’t begin to articulate my disgust over events in Albany with the state senate. Much of my activism last year was dedicated to enabling Democrats to finally take the majority. Painfully, their political incompetence as well as Governor David Paterson’s feckless leadership has effectively ended those reformist aspirations from 2006 when Eliot Spitzer was elected New York’s chief executive. With respect to who controls the state senate there is the 2010 census at stake and that means repercussions for the House of Representatives as well the power dynamic in Albany. For the people of this state it’s not just about reform or which party controls Albany. It’s being able to earn a living wage, afford healthcare, have access to affordable housing and good public schools. Unfortunately, New York's political leadership has shown that the Big Apple is a Banana Republic. Hopefully, the chaos between Democrats and Republicans will strengthen the leverage of New York’s <a href="http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/">Workers Family Party</a> as they represent the interests of New York’s struggling wage earners. Now more than ever Democrats need the support of the WFP and they have much work to do to earn it. As for Eliot Spitzer, tempermentally flawed as he is, I would gladly take him back and would even be willing to pay an "escort tax" to make it happen!</li></ul><div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/07/sunday-summer-musings.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-160004930605991948Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:19:00 +00002009-06-21T16:54:45.731-04:00BangladeshDarryl CollinsIndiaJonathan MorduchmicrofinancingOrlanda RuthvenPortfolios of the PoorSouth AfricaStuart RutherfordLiving On $2 A Day: An Interview With Economist Jonathan Morduch<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/k8884.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 456px;" src="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/k8884.png" alt="" border="0" /></a>According to the<a href="ttp://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/EXTANNREP/EXTANNREP2K6/0,,contentMDK:21046870%7EmenuPK:2924926%7EpagePK:64168445%7EpiPK:64168309%7EtheSitePK:2838572,00.html"></a> <a href="http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/EXTANNREP/EXTANNREP2K6/0,,contentMDK:21046870%7EmenuPK:2924926%7EpagePK:64168445%7EpiPK:64168309%7EtheSitePK:2838572,00.html">World Bank</a>, almost forty percent of humanity lives on a daily income of less than two dollars per day. Another 1.1 billion scrape by on less than one dollar per day.<br /><br />How can anyone possibly survive or raise a family with such a meager income? In New York City, two dollars per day won’t even cover my daily Brooklyn/Manhattan round-trip subway commute. Yet billions of low skilled people put food on the table, educate their children, grapple with unexpected emergencies and even save money.<br /><br />In<span style="font-style: italic;"> Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live On $2 a Day</span>, <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/05/17/q_and_a_with_daryl_collins/">Darryl Collins</a>, Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford and Orlanda Ruthven, compiled yearlong <a href="http://www.portfoliosofthepoor.com/">“financial diaries,”</a> of villagers and slum dwellers in Bangladesh, India and South Africa. The diaries track penny by penny, how <a href="http://www.portfoliosofthepoor.com/portfolios.asp">specific households</a> manage their money with sophistication and resourcefulness. Recently published by <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8884.html">Princeton University Press</a>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Portfolios of the Poor</span>, presents revealing data in an accessible seven chapters and 184 pages of text. The text is supported with an additional eighty plus pages of appendices, data tables and notes illustrating “the story behind the portfolios.”<br /><br />In a <span style="font-style: italic;">tour de force </span>of primary research, the <a href="http://www.portfoliosofthepoor.com/authors.asp">authors </a>report that the world’s poorest <span style="font-style: italic;">do not </span>live hand to mouth and desperately spend what they earn just to keep from drowning. Instead, they utilize financial tools, rely on “informal” networks through relatives and neighbors and navigate perils such as medical calamities and political strife. Their stories are both inspiring as well as heartbreaking.<br /><br />Although the world’s poorest are far more adept at financial management then previously understood, they’re confronted with what the authors describe as the “triple whammy”:<br /><ul><li>Low income</li><li>Irregularity of income.</li><li>Unpredictability about when they will earn income.<br /></li></ul>Hence, the authors assertively advocate for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfinance">microfinancing</a> as a means of empowering the world’s poorest with more secure and convenient instruments to access and manage money. Microfinancing is financial services for low income clients in the world’s poorest countries who are self-employed or operating their own businesses.<br /><br />The authors argue in their book that microfinancing should also be extended to address the needs of exceptionally low-income wage earners as well. It is their contention that poor people in the countries they researched demonstrate on a daily basis that they are responsible money managers and would also be reliable clients of microfinancing services.<br /><br />One of the authors, <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/06/04/living-on-2-a-day/">Jonathan Morduch</a>, is a New York University ("NYU") professor of economics as well as a managing director of the <a href="http://www.financialaccess.org/">Financial Access Initiative</a> - a consortium of researchers at NYU, Harvard, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action. Morduch, agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about the book and our conversation was just under twenty-six minutes.<br /><br />Among the topics covered was how his team earned the confidence of the people interviewed, the informal market tools utilized by the world’s poorest in Bangladesh, India and South Africa and why he’s a proponent of extending microfinancing to the world’s poorest wage earners.<br /><br />Please refer to the flash media player below.<br /><br /><object><embed src="http://www.antemedius.com/files/flvplayer.swf" flashvars="showicons=true &amp;file=http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/062709_Interview_With_Jonathan_Morduch.mp3&amp;image=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJeagle2.jpg&amp;logo=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJlogo.gif&amp;link=http://www.antemedius.com/users/intrepid-liberal-journal&amp;height=170&amp;width=300" width="300" height="170"></embed></object><br /><br />This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/living-on-2-day-interview-with.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-5045325088480053611Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:38:00 +00002009-06-14T23:25:26.582-04:00AhmadinejadAyatollah Ali KhameneiMir Husein MoussaviThat Freedom Thing<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/t1homeiran04irprt.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 265px; height: 239px;" src="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/t1homeiran04irprt.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Years. 1956. 1968. 1979. 1989. 1990. 1997. As events and protests unfold following the disputed Iranian presidential election I’m reminded of years and moments when the forces of totalitarianism and popular will stared each other down. Each moment contained its own unique historical tapestry and illustrated humanity’s common aspirations to live in dignity.<br /><br />With each instance there is wonderment and hope that history will turn the page for the better. History teaches however that such hopes are typically elusive.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hungary: October/November 1956</span> - America falsely suggests it would support an uprising against Soviet oppression and backs away. The Kremlin initially appeared ready to accept Hungary’s popular will and instead opted to crush it. And a generation of freedom is lost.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Czechoslovakia: January to August 1968 </span>- In January, reformist Slovak Alexander Dubcek comes to power and unleashes the “Prague Spring.” Citizens are granted more freedom as the economy is partially decentralized and restrictions on speech and the media are loosened. In April, Dubcek refers to his political program as “socialism with a human face.” On August 21st, the Soviet Union and members of the Warsaw Pact invade Czechoslovakia and Dubcek’s reforms are terminated. It became known as the “Brezhnev Doctrine,” as Moscow claimed the right to intervene any time a socialist country appeared ready to lose its way and embrace capitalism.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">China: April/May 1989 </span>- Twenty years ago the death of a pro-market, pro-democracy, and anti-corruption official, Hu Yaobang, sparks an uprising. A million people gathered at Tiananmen Square to mourn Hu. The movement lasts seven weeks, from Hu's death in mid April until tanks cleared Tiananmen Square on June 4th. It’s a young people’s movement, as one unarmed man is shown in footage worldwide obstructing a tank with his defiance. Many are killed, wounded and “rehabilitated” following these events as Beijing cracks down.<br /><br />The end result is an uneasy truce in which China’s economy is liberalized while the Communist Party maintains its hold onto power. Whenever corruption or popular discontentment is poised to rupture the truce, Beijing exploits the nationalist card with respect to Taiwan’s sovereignty or uses America and the West as a foil legitimizing their rule. Today, China finances America’s deficit with their expanding economy even as discontentment and the Internet threaten to undermine the regime’s authority.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Eastern Europe: 1989-1990</span> - The proudest feeling I ever had about my country took place in March 1990. While studying abroad in England I visited Berlin and Poland. “Velvet Revolutions” had swept Eastern Europe in 1989 and Poland was the first domino to fall that summer as our bipolar world disintegrated. Even so, I was initially more enthusiastic about visiting Berlin. By March 1990 Poland wasn’t really in the news anymore following more dramatic events in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. Nonetheless, the exhilarating feel of history was intoxicating.<br /><br />It seemed everyone I met in Poland, from the host family I stayed with, to the courageous Solidarity activists, referred to America as their model and inspiration. Shipyard workers and university students my age peppered me with questions about our model of government laws, society and material wealth. I had to convince several Poles that the Miami Vice television program was not representative of America as a whole. How strange to watch Miami Vice on Polish television with my host family as a single male voice overdubbed all the characters!<br /><br />One crusty fifty something activist told me that, “Your Constitution was stronger than Moscow’s tanks.” Lump in your throat stuff from someone who had confronted totalitarianism since I was in elementary school when the Gdansk shipyard workers rose up in 1981. Even so, the challenges ahead for Poland and Eastern Europe seemed nearly impossible to overcome.<br /><br />The legacy of Soviet style industrialization was making the mucus come out of my nose black while I toured the country. There were more consumer goods available than before but insufficient resources to meet the demand. I left Poland feeling inspired by their courage but skeptical that the transition could be pulled off. I also worried that the forces of nationalism would reemerge in Eastern Europe following the collapse of communism.<br /><br />The transition to market oriented democracies has been rough at times for Eastern Europe. Alas, the breakup of Yugoslavia resulted in genocide and bloodshed. Czechoslovakia is no longer a single country and the specter of the Russian Bear is worrisome once again. There was the tumultuous Ukrainian presidential election and Orange Revolution in 2004-05 in opposition to Russia’s imperious manipulations. Nonetheless, democracy appears to have largely taken hold but with the same challenges of transparency, corruption and economic fairness confronting all nations<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">South Africa: 1990 to 1994 </span>- In 1990 South Africa's President, F.W. de Klerk initiated the systematic dismantling of the racist Apartheid regime. Nelson Mandela, formerly imprisoned by the Apartheid government prevailed in South Africa's first democratic election in 1994. With respect to facilitating reconciliation between the newly empowered black majority and the deposed white minority, Mandela's leadership is a model of statesmanship. Unfortunately, after fifteen years of corruption and incompetence, millions of black South Africans live in poverty as the AIDS pandemic plagues their country.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Iran: 1979, 1997 and 2009</span> - And that brings us back to Iran. Most readers here should be familiar with the history. A brief snapshot however. In 1953 an American and British orchestrated a coup that replaced Iran’s parliamentary democracy with a monarchy led by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. America’s CIA trained his secret police known as SAVAK to preserve the Shah’s power. Hence, for over twenty-five years the West had a staunch ally in the oil rich Persian Gulf during the Cold War. Popular discontent however facilitated the demise of the Shah’s regime and he is forced to leave the country in January 1979.<br /><br />Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, formerly exiled by the Shah returns in February and ultimately becomes Iran’s Supreme Leader. The brutality of the Shah’s regime is replaced with an even more oppressive Islamic theocracy. Khomeni’s consolidation of power is especially brutal. In November 1979, Iranian students seize the American Embassy and take hostages resulting in thirty years of estrangement between the former allies. A catastrophic eight year war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1980s leaves Iran with a disproportionately youthful demographic.<br /><br />President Mohammad Khatami's 1997 landslide victory generates hope among Iran's young for a new era. Many are hoping Khatami will be Iran’s Gorbachev resulting in a rapprochement with the West. Khatami and his supporters are unable to overcome the conservative forces arrayed against them. President George W. Bush further undercuts Iranian reformers with his reactionary policies following 9/11. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prevails in 2005 under the banner of economic populism and social conservatism. He becomes an object of ridicule within his own country and an international embarrassment as he denies the Holocaust and openly threatens Israel’s destruction.<br /><br />Nobody with any horse sense believes Ahmadinejad legitimately defeated his reformist rival, Mir Husein Moussavi in a landslide. Today, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave his support to the outcome of the country's presidential election. Clashes are <a href="http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23iranelection">currently taking place </a>however between the police and Moussavi’s supporters.<br /><br />Obama’s diplomatic initiatives with Iran appear stalled until events shake out. Iran’s sham of a democracy has been exposed as illegitimate. We always knew that Iran’s elections were severely flawed as presidential candidates had to pass an ideological purity test to be permitted to compete. Initially, Moussavi appeared to be a clever tactic for dissenting impulses to have a means of acting out without threatening the regime’s hold on power.<br /><br />Instead, a genie has been unleashed and the only way to put it back in its bottle is with brute force. Use of such force as China did in 1989 will only further alienate the population from the regime and isolate Iran even more from the world.<br /><br />Obama is playing it cool at present and watching events unfold. In fairness to President Obama, America’s track record in intervening in Iranian affairs is not good. Our coup in 1953 was both immoral and strategically disastrous. Also, Obama’s foreign policy, for all the pretty rhetoric is reminiscent of George Herbert Walker Bush’s. It’s predicated on “stability” rather than encouraging grass roots movements against oppression.<br /><br />And it’s hard to conduct business with a country when an uprising is taking place. So, it is understandable that the president is risk adverse. America erred in 1956 with Hungary and many died when we were not willing to intervene on their behalf. America at present is fighting two wars and doesn’t possess the assets to intervene in a meaningful way. Suggesting otherwise would be irresponsible and might even undermine opponents of the regime. If he acts rashly the end results could be disastrous. Yet, if Obama remains a passive actor, an opportunity could be missed.<br /><br />Obama’s recent speech in Cairo is partially a catalyst to events on Iranian streets today. With an American president professing respect and conciliation towards the Islamic world, the rationale for Ahmadinejad as well as maintaining a bellicose posture against the West no longer seemed necessary. The recent election in Lebanon also suggested a response to Obama’s speech. Meanwhile, a viable constituency for ending Iran’s isolation certainly exits as illustrated by the 2009 campaign. Hence, Iran’s governing elite is obviously spooked by Obama’s speech, the Lebanese election and the increasing street activity of Moussavi’s supporters.<br /><br />How will history turn? Is this a revolution in the making or will Iran’s mullahs successfully crack down as the Chinese communists did in 1989? China’s economy was large enough to survive the world’s condemnation but could Iran absorb the repercussions of a brutal crackdown? Or will Iran’s ruling elite come up with face saving pragmatic compromises to ensure their power for another generation? Sadly, a "Velvet Revolution" like we saw in Eastern Europe in 1989 with limited bloodshed seems unlikely.<br /><br />Perhaps, Iran’s ruling establishment will manufacture a crisis with the United States to rally nationalist support on its behalf. Does Israel’s Netanyahu benefit from Ahmadinejad’s victory or will a popular uprising in Iran end Israel’s ability to distract from their oppression of the Palestinian people?<br /><br />The possibilities, opportunities and dangers are endless. And the stakes couldn’t be higher. One thing is for sure: far better to have Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the White House instead of the irrational John McCain and insipid Sarah Palin. I don't always agree with Obama's centrist like approach but at least he has a cool head.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/that-freedom-thing.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-113576343030595367Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:47:00 +00002009-06-07T16:08:04.669-04:00Barack ObamaBilly GrahamDwight EisenhowerevangelicalismRichard NixonSteven P. MillerBilly Graham & the Rise of the Republican South: An Interview With Historian Steven P. Miller<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/14614.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 225px; height: 338px;" src="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/trebor007/14614.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>In the age of Barack Obama, both the Republican Party as well as the South appear marginalized and out of step with the rest of America. Yet it wasn’t so long ago that the South represented the foundation of America’s conservative hegemony. Starting with Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, the Republican Party prevailed in nine out of the next fourteen presidential elections with a reliable Southern base.<br /><br />Specifically, the Republican Party exploited white Southern resentment against the cause of civil rights and integration. The "Southern strategy" as it was later called, enabled Republicans to end the Democratic Party's previous domination of the South following the Civil War. A key figure in that realignment was the renowned evangelist Billy Graham.<br /><br />Historian, Steven P. Miller, first explored Billy Graham’s role in this realignment with his <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/25521.html">doctorate thesis </a>entitled, “The Politics of Decency: Billy Graham, Evangelicalism, and the End of the Solid South, 1950-1980.” Miller later converted that thesis into his current book, <span style="font-style: italic;">Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South</span>, recently published by the <a href="http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14614.html">University of Pennsylvania Press</a>. Miller’s book delineates how Graham allowed his iconic celebrity to be used by national politicians so they could make inroads into the South. His book also details how Graham capitalized on his leverage as a regional heavyweight to influence presidents and policy.<br /><br />With President Dwight Eisenhower, Graham had an ideological soul mate as both valued “moderation” between segregationists and those who championed integration. Graham believed that racism could not be overcome through legislation and the heavy hand of federal power. Instead, he advocated changing the hearts and minds of people “one soul at a time” through his integrated “crusades” where he preached his love thy neighbor gospel.<br /><br />Under the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, Graham straddled the fence between promoting racial tolerance and preserving local southern autonomy or “states rights.” In that regard, Graham was an intimate part of Richard Nixon's inner circle after he became president in 1968. Graham’s defenders argue that he helped the South transition from its shameful past while preserving stability. His critics claim that Graham was a cowardly apologist for white privilege who didn’t do nearly enough to advance the cause of civil rights. Personally, like many liberals, I'm partial to the latter argument.<br /><br />Ross Douthat writes in his April 19th review of Miller's book in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/books/review/Douthat-t.html?_r=1&amp;scp=1&amp;sq=%22Steven%20P.%20Miller%22%20Graham&amp;st=cse"><span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times</span></a> that,<br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">“Neither story is the whole truth, but both are true. And it’s a credit to Steven P. Miller that his ‘Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South,’ a study of the evangelist’s relationship to the cause of civil rights on the one hand and the cause of conservatism on the other, does justice to the tensions and complexities involved — for Graham, for the South and for the country. In Miller’s account, one of 20th-century America’s most important religious leaders emerges as a representative political actor as well, whose example is worth pondering less because he was courageous than because he often wasn’t.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The story of the civil rights era is usually told as a collision between heroes and villains: the marchers on one side and the K.K.K. on the other; the Martin Luther Kings and Lyndon Johnsons making the way straight for justice, and the George Wallaces and Bull Connors standing sneering in their way. But the movement’s successes and failures were ultimately determined by the choices of more unheroic men — men like Billy Graham.”</span><br /></blockquote>Miller, who earned a PH.D degree in history from Vanderbilt University and has taught at numerous institutions, including Washington University, Webster University and Goshen College, agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about his book and our conversation was just under thirty-six minutes.<br /><br />Among the topics covered is the difference between hard core fundamentalism and evangelicalism, Graham’s role in facilitating Republican inroads into the previously reliable Democratic South, whether his middle ground on civil rights was courageous or cowardly, Graham's alliance with Eisenhower, his friendship with Lyndon Johnson, the intimate collaboration with Richard Nixon and the legacy he left behind.<br /><br />Please refer to the flash media player below.<br /><br /><object><embed src="http://www.antemedius.com/files/flvplayer.swf" flashvars="showicons=true<br />&amp;file=http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/060709_Interview_With_Steven_P_Miller.mp3&amp;image=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJeagle2.jpg&amp;logo=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJlogo.gif&amp;link=http://www.antemedius.com/users/intrepid-liberal-journal&amp;height=170&amp;width=300" width="300" height="170"></embed></object><br /><br />This interview can also be at accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/billy-graham-rise-of-republican-south.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-8439337872983992524Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:38:00 +00002009-06-03T07:41:50.514-04:00Barack ObamaBenjamin NetenyahuIsraelPalestiniansObama & the MideastPresident Obama is beginning his much-anticipated Mideast trip today in Saudi Arabia that includes a heavily promoted address to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt tomorrow. This trip coincides with President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, making news criticizing Israel's settlment policy in the occuppied territories. With respect to the criticism, Israel's settlement policy is both illegal and immoral.<br /><br />Obama's willingness to criticize Israel for it is certainly a change in rhetoric from standard American practice in recent years. The real test however will come as the Netenyahu government continues to defy the world and build within existing settlements. Will there be any consequences? I doubt it.<br /><br />At this point there is no organized counterweight to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee ("APAC"). As a Jewish American who cares about Israel, I once again express my regret that an effective counterweight to APAC does not exist. Without one, Israel will continue down a dark and perilious path and eventually reap a catastrophic whirlwind. In the meantime, blood is being shed.<br /><br />I suspect Obama's Israeli criticism is partly calculated to enhance his credibility prior to engaging the leadership of the Muslim world. Translation: "I'm being honest with Israel and not coddling them. So I'm going to be honest with you too and say, Israel has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed." That won't be enough.<br /><br />In fairness to Obama, I don't see how any president can resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Netanyahu, even if he wanted too, can't deliver diplomatic breakthroughs without fracturing his fragile coalition or provoking civil war with Israeli settlers. The Palestinian leadership under Abbas is even less capable of coming through with what is known in the world of diplomacy as "deliverables." With Hamas shut out, the Palestinian Authority has no credibility with its own people as it struggles to survive.<br /><br />Both Israeli and Palestinian societies are dysfunctional. After forty years of a brutal occupation, the Palestinians don't have the institutions or an established civil culture to govern itself as a peaceful neighbor. That won't change unless Palestinian society can have a transition period without the heavy yoke of occupation. The Palestinian young have known nothing but struggle, hardship and violence. They are jaded and easy prey to do the terrorist bidding of demagogues.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Israeli society has been morally corrupted as an occupier and the extremist settler movement further ties their government’s hands. Even worse, there is no effective political left in Israel serving as an opposition. The onetime proud Labor Party is serving in Netanyahu's coalition and the opposition Kadima Party is not much better than Netanyahu's Likud government. Curiously, the Israeli press is far more critical of the occupation than the American press. Nonetheless, no viable center-left opposition party capable of challenging Israel’s posture towards the Palestinians exists.<br /><br />It's heartbreaking but the cycle of violence appears unbreakable.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-mideast.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1009507953403301526Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:30:00 +00002009-06-01T07:52:23.906-04:00George TillerDr. Tiller's Assasination Is An Act of TerrorismAll I have to say about Dr. George Tiller's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html?_r=1&amp;partner=rss&amp;emc=rss">assassination yesterday </a>is that it is an act of terrorism. This man put himself at risk on behalf of women and was murdered because of it. The ultimate objective is to intimidate other doctors from helping women at a time of crisis in their lives. Anyone who has ever known a woman who aborted a baby learned it is not a frivolous decision on their part. Late term abortions are especially traumatic for women and typically done to save their lives.<br /><br />I've always respected people of conscious who genuinely believe abortion is wrong and have worked within the political system to oppose it. Regrettably, too many anti-abortion activists believe their moral imperative extends to murder. American conservatives have enabled the sort of terrorists that murdered Dr. Tiller and his family is living with the consequences.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/dr-tillers-assasination-is-act-of.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-3829095863243321814Sun, 31 May 2009 20:08:00 +00002009-05-31T21:33:53.296-04:00Christopher EisgruberNewt GingrichRush LimbaughSonia SotamayorSotomayor, White Grievance Politics & the Supreme Court<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.womensenews.org/images/Sonia-Sotomayor-2457.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 125px; height: 190px;" src="http://www.womensenews.org/images/Sonia-Sotomayor-2457.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Two of America’s leading sexist bigots, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, recently cited a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all">2001 speech</a> delivered by federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor as proof of her racism. As a liberal partisan, my instinctive reaction is disgust at their cynical attempt to exploit white identity grievance politics against the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee. Conservatives have been singing the same tune since Richard Nixon’s “law and order” campaign in 1968 with enormous destructive impact upon American civic life.<br /><br />Nonetheless, Sotomayor’s words and conservative critics reaction to her nomination, is instructive about our race/gender biases as well as the false ideal of objectivity in a Supreme Court justice. By now, many of us have read the following passage from Sotomayor’s 2001 speech to the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”<br /></blockquote>First, let’s address the argument between Sotomayor and those who believe that competent judges should reach the same conclusions regardless of their backgrounds, while Sotomayor acknowledges the impact of life experience upon her decisions. It happens there is truth in both arguments.<br /><br />For example, it might surprise many Americans to learn that the Supreme Court with judges as ideologically different as Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could ever reach a unanimous decision. Yet, it’s not unprecedented for the Supreme Court to announce numerous unanimous decisions early in its term. Indeed, on January 27th of this year, the Supreme Court announced <a href="http://www.acslaw.org/node/12881">five unanimous decisions</a> with respect to civil rights laws protecting workers against employer retaliation. The rights of workers and employers are often wedges between liberals and conservatives, yet Scalia and Ginsburg voted the same way on five such cases earlier this year.<br /><br />However, Sotomayor is also correct. As legal scholar and former Supreme Court clerk <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8464.html">Christopher Eisgruber</a>, persuasively argues, the Constitution contains too many abstract and vague references such as the Equal Opportunity Clause, for nine individuals to interpret the law without any ideological predisposition. Typically, as Eisgruber pointed out to me in a <a href="http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/05/next-justice-interview-with-legal.html">podcast interview </a>two weeks ago, precedent and text regardless of their judicial philosophies restrain lower court jurists. Even the famous case involving fire fighters in New Haven, Connecticut that have conservative critics frothing at the mouth against Sotomayor was a ruling largely based upon precedent and two of her colleagues voted the same way.<br /><br />Yet as Eisgruber also noted in our interview, historically, liberals and conservative jurists alike are eventually compelled to be “activists” and intervene through judicial review whenever a clause in the Constitution is simply too vague to provide sufficient guidance. As someone who clerked for conservative U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patrick E. Higginbortham and liberal Supreme Court justice, John Paul Stevens, Eisgruber knows whereof he speaks.<br /><br />Most of the time, an appeals court judge can be an “umpire” as Chief Justice John Roberts famously put it during his 2005 confirmation hearings. Much of the time, Supreme Court justices are impartial actors and personalities as different as Ginsburg and Scalia often rule the same way. Sotomayor’s background suggests that when the law and Constitution are clear, she will likely be representative of that tradition.<br /><br />Nonetheless, history also suggests that the next Supreme Court justice will be confronted with cases during their tenure that transcend the text drafted by America’s founders two centuries ago or feel compelled to overturn the will of congress. For example, future Supreme Courts may preside over cases with respect to civil liberties and the technology of <a href="http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/brain-mapping-civil-liberties-obama.html">functional magnetic resonance imaging </a>(brain mapping) in which neither the Constitution nor legal precedent are applicable. It also seems inevitable the Supreme Court will eventually preside over a case that transcends the will of state legislatures or congress with respect to gay marriage to ensure equal protection for all citizens.<br /><br />And that leads to the Sotomayor phrase about "a wise Latina woman” that has some conservatives behaving as if their sphincter muscles are on fire. I largely agree with Sotomayor’s 2001 speech. Even so, I believe her words about “a wise Latina woman” were ill chosen. Nonetheless, this latest conservative “outrage” is a mere distraction taken out of context. Conservatives are longtime practitioners of America’s fear industrial complex and the Sotomayor nomination is merely the latest example.<br /><br />When it’s one of their presidents they want justices with a reliable predisposition towards conservative activism. If a Democrat is in the White House conservatives emphasize restrained moderation. In fairness, liberal activists also emphasize moderation whenever confronted with nominees such as Roberts and Alito but gear up for a fight to advance our cause when we have a Democratic president. Such is the game of politics and elections do have consequences.<br /><br />Race/gender absolutely influences our worldview and can’t help but have an impact on a Supreme Court justice. Denying that is disingenuous and we shouldn’t. Nor should we fear it. Rather, a diversity of perspectives on our nation's highest court represents America at its best. Presently, this is an uncomfortable reality for many conservatives who don’t want to relinquish the benefits of “white privilege” and feel insecure about a black Democratic president nominating a female Hispanic judge. Unless of course that justice is pliable to their worldview as Clarence Thomas has been.<br /><br />It happens that I have a measure of empathy for their discomfort. My formative years were in Rockland County, New York and it was largely white bread cookie cutter suburbia when I was a kid. Although I live in Brooklyn, New York, today, I occasionally feel nostalgic about that provincial homogenous existence of my youth. I love the diversity of my adult neighborhood but even a liberal like myself is not above such sentiments.<br /><br />Nonetheless, white male hegemony domination of the Supreme Court is an anachronism best discarded. Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court is a reflection of our society's maturation and represents progress. As for conservatives and their childish grievances, I say spare the rod and spoil the child.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping</div>http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-white-grievance-politics.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Robert Ellman)0